Skip to content

A little clip from another site regarding certain discussions

04/25/2013

Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

“Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective.  In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country.  Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.

If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen.  There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of  Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born.  Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.

I’ll let someone else make my argument, as some appear not to consider my interpretation worthy. The Founders intent may not be altered by future court interpretations.

http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Kenyan National Assembly members state at various times that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a native born American:
Kenyan Ambassador to the United States says on a U.S. radio show that Obama’s birth location in Kenya is well known:
Newspapers in Kenya and other African countries report as far back as 2004 that Obama is Kenyan born:
Obama’s family members in Kenya say he was born there:
Michelle Obama the wife of Barack Hussein Obama says in 2008 that Kenya is her husband’s “home country”:
Michelle Obama the wife of Barack Hussein Obama in 2007 says her husband is a Kenyan:
NPR radio says that Obama is Kenyan born:
Gov Richardson of New Mexico says Obama is an immigrant:
School records in Indonesia report that he is an Indonesian citizen:
No hospital records exist in Hawaii proving Obama was born there per Tim Adams a 2008 Hawaii Election official’s sworn affidavit:
Obama’s Hawaiian birth registration records was likely created by an affidavit filed by Obama’s maternal grandmother declaringhim born at home with no witnesses using a simple mail-in form available in 1961 simply to gain her new foreign born grandsonCitizenship. Birth registration fraud to gain Citizenship occurs now and it occurred then. His vital records were likely subsequentlyamended upon the marriage of his mother to her second husband, Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii. His official name in the vital records of Hawaii may show his name still as Soetoro. The online Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is a forgery:
A Catalog of Evidence: Concerned Americans Have Good Reason toDoubt that Putative President Obama was Born in HawaiiRead why here : http://www.scribd.com/doc/32486123/WEB/BLOG: http://www.protectourliberty.orghttp://puzo1.blogspot.com
Paid for by: American people donating funds at ProtectOurLiberty.org to support awareness of Obama’s constitutional eligibility issues.
Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards!
What Post-Founding Generation U.S. President is Reported as Born in a ForeignCountry by Family Members, Newspapers, and Government Officials in that ForeignCountry who repeatedly state the he was Born in Their Country and not in the USA?Answer: None – until Obama usurped the Presidency of the United States. 

15 Comments
  1. Dr. Jeff permalink
    04/25/2013 12:16

    Reverend, I’m a good member of the choir here, but I’ve got to disagree a little. The problem isn’t establishing the facts and laws surrounding Obama’s birth. It’s getting a majority of the people of the U.S. and Congress in particular to realize that dethroning Obama is more beneficial than allowing him to remain in office. It’s more a political problem than one of law and fact.

    The only exception to that is if a case can be brought and won before the Supreme Court. So far, SCOTUS has declined every opportunity to address the issue.

  2. upaces88 permalink
    04/25/2013 12:21

    I am sorry to say this. It, actually, hurts to say this. NOT ONE THING will be done about him as far as the BC is concerned (or anything else, for that matter.)

    I am going to give the politicians just a “tid-bit” of an excuse. I actually believe that they are scared of him…FEARFUL of him.

    Think about it. They did it to Nixon and Clinton on much small issues than this. Something VERY sinister is going on that we haven’t found out about “yet.” We will…but it hasn’t come out “yet.”
    As the ol’ saying goes, “S…t always floats to the surface”.

  3. 04/25/2013 15:25

    It has taken some time, but I have come to the conclusion (with a few exceptions) that there is no real difference between the two major political parties. Oh sure, they have their PR out there. And on the surface it would appear they are quite different. Different in their goals and objectives. But as the old saying goes, “Talk is cheap. actions speak louder than words.”

    Both sides (perhaps for some different reasons) want the same thing in the end. They want to control YOU. Weither it is what you eat, drink, smoke…have relations with. Or perhaps it has to do not so much with you as an individual, but for “The Greater Good”, or The Children, or we must be the arbiters of morality regardless of you being old enough to make choices (good or bad) on your own. OR We are the government and we know what is good/best/has to be done for the good of the mother land…and YOU don’t …so SHUT UP! (or we will shut you up).

    Sooooo getting to the point…

    Nothing is going to be done IRT Obama’s legitimacy (be it due to his not meeting NBC status vis a vis the Constitution). Or his blatant bypassing of the Constitution in his use of EO’s (rumor has it he will, by executive order, bypass the 2nd amendment…we shall see…but I am no longer surprised at anything this asshole does.). Or the allowing of subordinates (Holder, Clinton, etc) to use illegal means to advance the Progressives/administrations causes. (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, come to mind…to name just two.) All of the above would be considered impeachable offenses, at the very least. And a number of them border on Treasonable actions.

    He either has something on a percentage of the members of the legislative branch, or more in likely, they are either too corrupt to want things to really change. Then again, there may be a few who realize, should this asshat be brought down (and his administration as well) may necessitate the “null and voiding” of all legislation signed by this asshat. The resulting shit storm….might bring about rioting in the street the likes of which this country hasn’t seen. (Think about it, if in fact 52% voted for this putz, on the chance they were going to “get” something ….free health care…unemployment until the end of time….cell phones..the list goes ever on. If someone turns around and removes your sugar daddy ad all his friends. AND makes all the free stuff null and void. That would tend to make you want to go and bang your sippy cup. (If you mean “bang your sippy cup” is code for rioting and looting at will, you would be correct.)

    He is not going anywhere. He may not even exit the office at the end of this term. If there is a way for him to get away with it.

    We are well and truly screwed!

  4. 04/25/2013 18:18

    Guy, I don’t give a rat’s ass if they want to riot. By and large the military would be forced to do their duty and control it, and it would give me an excellent opportunity to brush up my marksmanship.

  5. Dr. Jeff permalink
    04/25/2013 18:43

    The other side of the problem is that in the event of an Obama putsch, we would have to be wary of our fellow citizens as much as we would have to wary of Obama’s troops. In any dictatorship, one of the keys is a network of informers. It was true in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and anywhere else in the world some brutal dictator has suppressed his own people.

  6. 04/25/2013 19:59

    CM: Wasn’t particularly worried here either. Just wanted to be clear on the issue, that there would be “push back” from those who are already in the gimmy mode. Don’t know if the military would be involved, tho I suspect the Guard in its function as an arm of any given State’s militia would do the trick.

    Dr. J: That is very true. The left (and other malcontents) would love nothing more than to “inform” on anyone who does not meet their particular parameters, be it social, political, or just the fact your yard is much nicer than theirs is. Chances are we would be looking at CW2 or Rev 2.0 if such an event transpired. So I would bet there would be considerable risk involved by said quislings if they happened to live in the wrong state, or in the wrong county of even a number of supposed Dem controlled states.

  7. 04/27/2013 01:59

    In case any of you are interested this is an excellent source on how ineligible and illegal Obama actually is to be POTUS. I sadly agree with Dr. Jeff and what he had to say. BTW, I am in a state that would be full of informers and snitches. Just keep stockin’ up as best I can.

    Here is link to Bob Gard’s outstanding ebook and yes, I have READ ALL OF IT.

    http://the-constitutionist.com/

  8. 04/27/2013 08:07

    Thanks for the referral, Patriot.

  9. upaces88 permalink
    04/27/2013 14:20

    That list just went out viral. It covers EVERY article, country we have needed vs. one article at a time over a long period of time.
    THANK YOU!

  10. 04/27/2013 14:27

    Just glad to have found it!

  11. Dr. Jeff permalink
    04/27/2013 17:24

    I just got off the phone with a friend of mine. The informer and snitch aspect aspect of our neighbors in the opposition isn’t the worst of it. We got talking about his nephew who is a card carrying Communist.

    This nephew has lately been bragging about how they have organized and listed all sorts of interesting things, like gun stores they can rob when they want guns. He also had some things to say about how they had organized through the union at the U.S. Post Office to identify and list people like us.

    Think about it. Among other things, I get “American Rifleman” every month. Through a Communist infiltrated union, I (and probably a lot of you), are listed for special treatment when the Commies are ready to move. Then again, how many different ways can they influence police investigations and G-d knows how many other things? The LAPD is not known for being firearms friendly in the first place.

    People like the nephew LOVE the way Obama is fracturing our country. He is daily bringing them closer to their goals.

  12. upaces88 permalink
    04/27/2013 17:26

    Awww, Dr. Jeff! That makes me sick! Jeeeeze!

  13. 04/27/2013 19:30

    Well, you at least have someone you know needs a terrible accident, ASAP.

  14. 04/28/2013 01:50

    I sent the link to this feed to Mr. Gard and his reply is belwo for those who might be interested.

    From Bob Gard and he KNOWS Vattel:

    “In the first place, Vattel was adding a secondary definition to “naturels, ou indigènes.” These French words did not mean natural-born citizens in the way Vattel was later translated by Scott because of his meetings with Jay. They meant a person, or in some cases, anything born in a country or location, nothing to do with parents. A French-English translator would never have translated the French “naturel” into the English “natural” because natural then had predominantly a definition of a fool in English dictionaries. Vattel added his definition to the French terms that was later usurped by Jay in his usage of natural-born citizen. Vattel might never had seen natural-born citizen in print. If he had, it probably didn’t carry the same meaning. The ancients in some instances required citizenry from two citizen parents for certain political rights and civil functions, but, as far as I could find out, they never used the term natural-born citizen.”

    I KNOW a lot of traitors who need to have a terrible accident, way too many. I can think of a whole bunch here locally where I trapse.

  15. 04/28/2013 08:16

    I have read a number of those court cases where the standard definition was directed at the Presidency stating two citizens parents. 1791 the first congress allowed for two citizens deployed overseas, but both citizens of USA. The case on McCain was settled by that, but no one asked about Ovomit. a: it’s mother was not old enough to transfer citizenship, she would have had to be 19, b: Father (listed as father, was he really?) was British. c: BC has been proven fake. This MMMPOS is either a traitor or a spy in almost every action it has taken, and it has violated the Constitution on innumerable occasions. It attempts to rule as a king continually.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,682 other followers

%d bloggers like this: