DEFINITION on DEMAND

©2011 jbjd

The Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution.  It can set aside any law – federal, state, or local – that a majority of the justices believes conflicts with any part of the Constitution.

http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/April/20080415234710eaifas0.2570917.html

(For a more legalistic discussion of the authority of Article III courts, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag14_user.html#art3_sec2)

No matter how many times or how strenuously people repeat the absurd claim that the definition of NBC in the U.S. Constitution is fixed by reference to any other written work, nothing fixes a definition of NBC until the ‘fat lady holding the scales of justice sings.’

In other words, until justices on the federal appellate court weigh in with a definition in a holding in a case specifically on point.  All else is cacophony.

Lie number 1. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say, this man Vattel wrote a book entitled Law of Nations in which he pontificated as to which of the laws of various nations he would incorporate into his Utopian country, and that the term NBC is unambiguously defined within this text.  Let us further assume that before deliberating on their own treatise, better known as the U.S. Constitution, the original drafters had access to Vattel’s tome, considering such variables including the date and place of publication, language, and availability; and that they did, indeed, read his definition of NBC before drafting our Constitution.

Assuming all that, it is nonetheless absurd to make the leap of logic that says with certainty, the Drafters, having read Vattel’s definition of NBC and understood his meaning, thereby adopted his definition into their text.  Because based on this logic that insists, any subject mentioned in the Constitution evidences a  concurrence with its counterpart in Vattel’s Law of Nations; we would also have state sponsored mandatory public worship of God and banishment of minority practitioners, instead of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA140&vq=religion&dq=vattel+law+of+nations&id=pBwMAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lie number 2. We know the Drafters meant for us to follow Vattel’s definition of NBC in Article II, section 1 because they specifically referenced “Law of Nations” in Article I, section 8 (“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”)

Setting aside the colonial custom of capitalizing nouns, let’s assume, again, this reference in Article I, section 8 adopts Vattel’s treatment of piracy exactly as laid out in his book (as opposed to a generic standard of responding to piracy on the high seas, according to laws of various nations sailing the seas).  According to the rules of statutory interpretation, this would not only not mean,  the Drafters intended the definition of NBC to echo Vattel’s definition; but it would mean precisely the opposite!  That is, by using the reference to Law of Nations in one place in the document but not the other, the court would find the Drafters intended not to mean the definition proffered by Vattel.

“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-5274.pdf

That is, given that the Drafters obviously knew how to reference Vattel in one part of the Constitution, this means, if they had wanted to reference his work in another part of this legal document, they likely would have.  Yet, they failed to repeat the phrase either in Article II or anywhere else in the document.

But definitively attributing the phrase “Law of Nations” in Article I to Vattel’s text and not to a general world standard of laws, is absurd on its face.

John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers so as to persuade the special Constitutional panels in the 13 states to ratify the newly drafted U.S. Constitution to replace the inadequate Articles of Confederation.  In Paper 83, Mr. Hamilton addresses the construction of Article III, the federal judiciary, arguing for a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases but not in civil cases.  (All emphasis added.)

But this is not, in my estimation, the greatest objection. I feel a deep and deliberate conviction that there are many cases in which the trial by jury is an ineligible one. I think it so particularly in cases which concern the public peace with foreign nations that is, in most cases where the question turns wholly on the laws of nations. Of this nature, among others, are all prize causes. Juries cannot be supposed competent to investigations that require a thorough knowledge of the laws and usages of nations; and they will sometimes be under the influence of impressions which will not suffer them to pay sufficient regard to those considerations of public policy which ought to guide their inquiries. There would of course be always danger that the rights of other nations might be infringed by their decisions, so as to afford occasions of reprisal and war. Though the proper province of juries be to determine matters of fact, yet in most cases legal consequences are complicated with fact in such a manner as to render a separation impracticable.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_83.html

Or, just scroll back to Vattel’s own text, in which the phrase “law of nations” and permutations appear generously.

Lie number 3. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in a law review article; and the Boston Globe°; and dicta in several Supreme Court cases not directly on point.

See lie number 1.

° This lie is especially pernicious, for 2 (two) reasons.  First, it falsely implies the theories of the speaker are supported by the imprimatur of the editors of the Boston Globe! In truth, an advice column appearing in the newspaper more than 100 years ago,contained what the writer stated was his personal opinion, namely, the words “native born” and “natural born” appearing in the Constitution in relation to the word “citizen” mean two different things.  Second, it disingenuously sustains a fabricated claim that the words “native born” and “natural born” can honestly be conflated to mean the same thing and then uses the personal off-the-cuff opinion of the columnist to hyperbolically deflate such contention.  Ha, the ‘legal’ pundit pedaling this tripe calls the Globe piece a “crucially relevant article.”  Straw dogs.  As I indicated in the beginning of the present post, following  the basic rules of statutory interpretation necessarily leads to the conclusion that, because the Drafters used “native born” in one section of the document and “natural born” in another section; the courts would assume they intended “native born” and “natural born” to mean two different things!

******************************************************************************************

I cannot say what the Founders intended by the term NBC.  But I am troubled by the willingness of so many purported “patriots” to supplant reason with their interpretation of the document those Founding Patriots created. Of course, I have studied history; of course, I have studied the law. Naturally, I have opinions. But I am not the arbiter of the Constitution’s truth; and neither are any of those internet pontificators, lawyer and layperson alike, who claim otherwise.

I could not care less as to the individual interpretations people ascribe to the original intent of the Drafters; or whether they adopt a Constitutional methodology of original intent or ‘living document,’ to reach their conclusions. But I am as fearful of becoming enslaved by zealots on one side as on the other.  Let me emphasize, just because a particular lay interpretation appears to make sense to lay people does not mean it could survive critical judicial scrutiny. (Keep in mind, many of the people involved with founding this government were trained as lawyers.) If I point to a flaw with the legal methodology, this does not mean, I am pointing to a flaw in the character. That people continue to label theories of statutory construction as ‘belonging’ to one person or another scares the hell out of me. Practically speaking, the meaning of the Constitution is only ascertained when the federal bench rules, this it what it means. This is why I seldom express my personal views as to what the document means; or engage in endless speculation as to what the Constitution means. I am too busy doing actual work aimed at changing the status quo.

While there are few absolutes in interpretation, certainly we can all concede that no interpretation is valid or invalid based only on who is espousing that view.  So, in conclusion, I want to repeat my strenuous objections that some people, expressing an opposing view to the positions discussed in this article, continue to direct such dissent to me and not to the work.  I suspect these bullies are intentionally misleading people by clinging to discredited theories of Constitutional interpretation in order to sidetrack attention and energies which could be better utilized to challenge the legality of those Certifications of Obama’s nomination submitted in several ballot eligibility states.

Because in the end, Obama will not be removed from office on the basis of a legal definition of NBC, anyway.  Even if  documents available in the public record could establish the facts of his birth, which facts could then be fit into such legal definition of NBC.   Because no law required the Electors to only elect a President who meets the Constitutional eligibility for office, anyway.  But we have no such facts of birth or legal definition of NBC.  However, we definitely know the definition of “C.”  Because the SCOTUS has previously ruled on this issue in several cases directly on point.  This means, we can confront anyone who Certified to state election officials in applicable states, candidate Obama was qualified for office, with this question: on what documentary basis did you ascertain beforehand he was a U.S. Citizen?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Advertisements

82 Responses to DEFINITION on DEMAND

  1. […] Support posted about this interesting story. Here is a small section of the postEven if documents available in the public record could establish the facts of his birth, which facts could then be fit into such legal definition of NBC. Because no law required the Electors to only elect a President who meets the Constitutional …. Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. … […]

  2. […] Omar Ha-Redeye posted about this interesting story. Here is a small section of the postOr, just scroll back to Vattel’s own text, in which the phrase “law of nations” and permutations appear generously. Lie number 3. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in a law review article; and the Boston Globe°; … […]

  3. Mick says:

    (Name calling omitted by jbjd.)
    If natural born Citizen has no meaning as you say, then the states would certainly have no role in vetting the eligibility of a candidate.
    Your relativism (because you are of the (name calling omitted by jbjd) Left, which is truly the bottom line, I mean really, you wax poetically about H. Zinn!), leads to the same place; that is that nothing means anything, because everyone’s feelings and thoughts are valid.
    If the term had no meaning, then what was Resolution 511, and the grilling of McCain all about? (they said he was nbc because his parents were US Citizens AND he was born in US Territory; AND Tribe and Olsen said that a natural born Citizen was born “within the territory AND ALLEGIANCE of a nation).
    They ALL know what it means.
    They all know that Natural Law is the basis of our law, and the laws between nations.
    Reading your circular arguments and whining about those “stealing” your ideas, and your relativistic logic that twists itself into a pretzel, and ultimately means nothing, makes me say to myself, Yup (name calling omitted by jbjd) leftist Clinton supporter.
    No I am not a “right winger”, or a “republican”, or a “misogynist”. Just someone who knows that there is a definite meaning of the word “is”, and that the Constitution has definite meaning that is easily found and understood by the common man. Understood at least until relativist lawyers like you played telephone w/ it for 2oo years.

    mick: Thank you for this comment, which proves my point. “Demand a definition” of NBC, notwithstanding the Drafters wrote a Constitution explicitly authorizing the Supreme Court to fix the meaning of its terms. Ignore a well-reasoned and well-documented essay that points to an explanation why individuals cannot reasonably claim the right to say who is a NBC and, instead, respond to me with personal invectives. Just as I described.

    You write, “If natural born Citizen has no meaning as you say, then the states would certainly have no role in vetting the eligibility of a candidate.” NBC has no meaning not because ‘I say,’ but because the Drafters left such meanings to the SCOTUS, which hasn’t yet spoken. And, as I have previously pointed out in numerous articles and comments, states have no role in vetting the eligibility of candidates except insofar as they may determine which candidates’ names they agree to print on state ballots. Keep in mind, all of this detail with respect to the ballot is fixed by state law. You can think of it this way: states cannot possibly print the names of all the people who want their names pre-printed on the ballot. So, they write laws limiting those names with requirements like, the candidate must present petitions with so many names, or pay a processing fee, or be submitted by a state political party.

    You write, “…you wax poetically about H. Zinn!” so as to support calling me names. But you appear to have missed a salient point of that post, entirely. I was aiming my remarks at those citizens left of center who, up to the time I posted that piece, might have dismissed entirely the issues of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS along with its proponents, most of whom had long since become easy targets for ridicule. I pointed out that even Professor Zinn, a champion of organized labor, supported my decision to cross a picket line when labor was abrogating their role to honor my rights as a worker. I specifically asked those people to consider that, perhaps, those of us contesting the electoral process, pointing to its flaws and trying to fix it, could use their help. Indeed, after I wrote that article, many of the left leaning sites I mentioned did begin reading my work. (And I received an apology from a harsh critic who had been attacking me from the right!)

    Let me confront the vitriol expressed in your writing, for citizens whose politics are different from yours. I express a lack of tolerance when my fellow citizens spread lies which are not based in fact and, indeed, are contradicted by fact. On the other hand, you express a lack of tolerance for the right of your fellow citizens to think differently from you. Those are the same sentiments spelled out in Vattel’s writing, when the difference in thought pertained to religion. That is, establish a state religion and, if people think differently, that is, follow a different religion or, none at all then, let them sell their property and move on. Luckily for us, the Drafters rejected his opinion on this, if they had considered his viewpoints at all.

    And, finally, let me remind you, I am entitled to the fruits of my intellectual capital. People who steal are thieves. Worse, when they steal my ideas about how to redress the wrongs in the electoral process, without understanding what they stole, they risk irreparable harm to all of the good work that goes on here. (Didn’t you read or understand the disaster that could have occurred in NH, which is not an applicable state for ballot fraud, when my idea of filing citizen complaints was usurped and tried out, there? https://jbjd.org/2011/01/24/write-smart-eligibility-laws/) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. You write, “If the term had no meaning, then what was Resolution 511, and the grilling of McCain all about? (they said he was nbc because his parents were US Citizens AND he was born in US Territory; AND Tribe and Olsen said that a natural born Citizen was born “within the territory AND ALLEGIANCE of a nation).” These pages are full of my opinion about that dog-and-pony show called non-binding Senate Resolution 511. I repeat, the term NBC has no legally binding meaning notwithstanding S511. Messrs. Tribe and Olsen would not have submitted such tripe to a court of law. (John McCain is a NBC because his parents were “affiliated” with a military base?) The non-binding Senate resolution has no legally binding effect. https://jbjd.org/2009/10/27/bob-bauer-rumored-to-be-next-white-house-counsel-to-federal-court-f-you/

    • Speak2Truth says:

      ” The non-binding Senate resolution has no legally binding effect.”

      Um… that’s not what a non-binding Resolution is.

      It is a resolution to an internal Senate matter, such as resolving the legal eligibility of a Presidential candidate, that is not NEW LEGISLATION, which would require a vote of the House and the signature of the President to be carried into effect.

      The Senate exercised its authority to settle a legal issue that did not require participation by the House or President.

      John McCain’s lawyers could go home because the government body responsible for doing so had resolved his qualification for the office of President.

      Barack Obama’s lawyers have continued the fight, to this day, to prevent his qualification from being established.

      • jbjd says:

        Speak2Truth: You seem to be saying, I am wrong about the nature of a non-binding resolution; however, your comment does not support your criticism. The Senate has no lawful authority to determine whether a particular person is a citizen, but only what is required for citizenship generally. The Executive branch, through USCIS, could determine citizenship of both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama. ADMINISTRATOR

        • slcraignbc says:

          Your suggestion that the USCIS would or could determine the status of an existing citizen is incorrect according the the Administrative Appeals Court Judge that Ruled in my application for acknowledgement of being a U.S. natural born Citizen based on the specific circumstances of my birth.

          In fact he said the best he could do is acknowledge that I am a “native-born U.S. Citizen”. When I appealed to the 10th Eric Holder won his Motion for Dismissal based on the fact that under the Rules I was NOT under a Deportation Order” and therefore had no standing to Appeal.

          The FACT is, “currently there is NO uniformly acknowledged legal and enforceable identification of circumstances that constitutes being born in conformity to the usage of the term of words in the COTUS at A2S1C5, a (U.S.) natural born Citizen.”

          • jbjd says:

            slcraignbc: This comment is a bit clearer for me, than some others you have submitted. What I understand here is that, you were involved in a court case, in which you sought a determination from an ALJ, a member of the Executive branch of government, as to whether you were a NBC. In other words, you were asking for a Declaratory Judgment. (You can find several articles and comments throughout this blog, with respect to declaratory judgments.) In short; a party will seek a declaratory judgment from a court of law because sometime in the future, that party fears s/he might become a Defendant in a case that hinges on conduct clarified by the prior court. Here, you seem to indicate that AG Holder pointed out, inasmuch as you did not face jeopardy under a deportation order then, you presented no case or controversy which could be adjudicated in a federal (appeals) court. He was correct. I laud your efforts to reach a quasi-judicial ruling as to what is a NBC. But the only means I can envision to obtain a binding definition of NBC, which would satisfy all of the procedural hurdles of court, is through ballot eligibility. ADMINISTRATOR

          • Speak2Truth says:

            Taking it one step further, the Resolution of McCain’s status was co-sponsored by Barack Obama and is full of irrelevant, even false statements. It seems an intentional effort to confuse the matter of Presidential qualification.

            It did conclude, in its final sentence, that McCain was born under US Jurisdiction to parents who were both Citizens so he actually meets the definition found in Law of Nations.

            The rest of the verbiage seemed an effort to establish ‘precedent’ of irrelevancy and falsehood, to enable further future obfuscation of the matter. That is how Leftists operate – redefining reality through mere words.

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: Again, McCain was not a citizen at birth, but only retroactively. See my previous Reply. ADMINISTRATOR

          • slcraignbc says:

            Excuse me for butting in BUT…………as much as I’ve come to dislike MvLame, he WAS born a U.S. Citizen by virtue of being born to at least one (1) U.S. Citizen parents, ANYWHERE in the world.

            That benefit of U.S. Citizenship is the corner-stone of the ‘established uniform Rule”, ……. ” … Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.”

            That is not to say that the Congress does not have or have not used their authority to include of exclude specific classes of peoples or places for various causes from time to time, but specific exceptions are often cited as proving the RULE.

          • jbjd says:

            slcraignbc: I will not argue with you, to ‘prove’ my point that only Congress determines who is a citizen. In 1936, at the time of his birth in Panama, John McCain was not a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding whether both of his parents were. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title8/pdf/USCODE-2010-title8.pdf, p. 10 ADMINISTRATOR

          • slcraignbc says:

            Where specifically in that printing of 8 usc gpo revisions printing are you saying that McLames parents were denied the birthright citizenship that ALL U.S. Citizens possess no matter where in the world they may be since March of 1790.

          • jbjd says:

            slcraig: At the top of page 10, right-hand column:

            Sections 602 to 605, act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I,
            subch. II, §§ 202–205, 54 Stat. 1139, related to citizens by
            birth in Puerto Rico, Canal Zone or Panama, nationals
            but not citizens and children born out of wedlock. See
            sections 1402, 1403, 1408, 1409(a), (c), and 1407, respec-
            tively, of this title

            “Act Oct. 1940” refers to the Nationality Act of 1940, which, for the first time, extended U.S. citizenship to children of citizens, born in Panama. (And did so retroactively, to 1904.) Again, U.S. citizenship is only conferred in accordance to codified law, and not according to what we might otherwise wish.ADMINISTRATOR

          • Speak2Truth says:

            Admin: Nationality Act of 1940, which, for the first time, extended U.S. citizenship to children of citizens, born in Panama.

            And the US Constitution clearly distinguishes between Citizens and Natural Born Citizens.

            Natural Born Citizenship is a ‘Natural’ status. There is only one way to acquire it, by birth in the nation to parents who are citizens, so that no other national citizenship or allegiance is conferred at birth.

            Laws can make up many ways to become a Citizen, whether by birth or naturalization. But they can not change a natural state of being.

            “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.” – Law of Nations

            “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” – Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment

            “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” –James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790

        • Speak2Truth says:

          What? The Resolution had nothing to do with McCain’s “citizenship”. That’s a whole different matter.

          Are you trying to change the subject?

          The question is whether he met the requirements to qualify as a “Natural Born Citizen”. That is, born without any foreign citizenship or allegiance. The Senate provided a resolution to the question, confirming he was born under US Jurisdiction to parents who were both Citizens, and that was the end of challenges to his eligibility, as far as I have seen.

          They could not do the same for Barack Obama because he had multiple Citizenship at birth, due to his foreign Father. So, the DNC lawyered up to prevent Obama’s qualification from being resolved.

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: As no lawfully binding definition of NBC exists, I would at least like to ensure, my President satisfies the “C.” Nothing in the documentary record can establish Mr. Obama is even a C. And we know Mr. McCain is a C only because Congress enacted a law when he was one year old, which grandfathered children of citizens, born in Panama, into the citizenship penumbra. ADMINISTRATOR

      • slcraignbc says:

        The Sr 511 by the CRS HACK is not and could not be “legal and enforceable” by the simple FACT that the Acts to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization were NOT construed in order to identify the circumstances that produces a U.S. natural born Citizen under the Laws made in pursuance of the COTUS.

        Those Acts, (1790 / ’95), were most probably avoided because the Repeal of the “foreign born U.S. natural born Citizen provision” by the 195 Act cuts the legs off of any legal argument that the McLame Sidney could be eligible when being born out of the limits of the U.S.

        Foreign Installations have NEVER been considered U.S. soil insofar as U.S. Citizenship Laws are concerned and MOST Foreign Affairs Manuals express as much.

        The reasoning is simple, just consider how many foreign mothers would flood such installations on their “Labor day” so that their child might be considered as a U.S. Citizen

  4. juriggs says:

    hi jbjd,

    you are absolutely dead on regarding the fact that there is no legal definition of the term “natural born citizen”. But don’t you think it’s worthwhile to work towards getting that term defined – especially after the craziness of the last three years or so?

    I don’t claim to know how to get it done, but in my mind the most important thing we can do as citizens is try to bring attention to the fact that we have no way of ascertaining whether *any* of our presidential candidates are eligible, because we have *no* way of knowing whether any of them are natural-born citizens! We MUST get the SCOTUS to define the term, and from there we can move forward.

    juriggs: How absolutely wonderful to hear from you again. Yes, I agree we need to shape the eligibility discussion. I proposed more than a year ago now, that each state gets to write its own ballot eligibility definition. For example, if voters believe the definition of NBC is, 2 (two) citizen parents then, write the ballot eligibility law that way. A candidate or political party aggrieved by such law will undoubtedly appeal to the federal courts, probably accusing the state of defining the Constitution, a function left to the SCOTUS. In this way, we could achieve a legal definition of NBC. Or, by enacting laws requiring Electors to only vote for a candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, in a state with a ballot eligibility law. (BTW, I often think of you when I read another hyperbolic ‘expose’ wrongly deducing that only fraud explains why the Certification of Obama’s Nomination submitted to HI contains specific wording of eligibility, while the other 49 states – again, misinformation – contain no such wording. It’s been more than 3 (three) years now since you and I compared notes on that wording, which we know resulted from state law requirements. We have come a long way since December 2008 / January 2009, huh.) ADMINISTRATOR

    • Speak2Truth says:

      >> “there is no legal definition of the term “natural born citizen”.”

      Sure there is. It’s in the reference book used by the Founders as they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

      The Constitution requires this status to qualify for the Presidency. The description of this status is spelled out so clearly it is impossible to get wrong:

      “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations

      Note: Law of Nations has been a key reference for Congress and the Supreme Court, when determining the meaning of the Constitution, and continues to be used for this purpose even today. Most recent case I found was Arizona v. United States, 2012, that refers directly to Law of Nations for Constitutional meaning.

      • jbjd says:

        Speak2Truth: I am so glad you raised that case; but not for the reason you raised it. Here is the seminal quote:

        As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitution-ally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:

        “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular pur-poses, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreedto render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II,ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182

        For starters; legally-speaking, reference to a treatise within a SCOTUS opinion means nothing, even assuming this reference appears in the court’s holding in the case, and even if the holding otherwise otherwise supports your argument. Moreover, this reference to a treatise appears in a dissenting opinion, giving it less than no meaning, wherever it appears in the text, inasmuch as dissents have no ‘precedential authority’ (that is, “stare decisis”).

        But this reference to Vattel – ‘adapt or leave’ – supports my contention that, insisting the Founders mimicked the opinions of Vattel necessarily requires you to incorporate not only his definition of citizenship, with which you apparently agree; but also his insistence there is no separation between church and state (‘if you don’t adopt the prevailing religion, leave’), as I pointed out in my article. In short, to be consistent, you would have to reject the 1st Amendment. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. markcon says:

    can you explain your over the top rhetoric here? maybe its just to many big words for me:

    ° This lie is especially pernicious, for 2 (two) reasons. First, it falsely implies the theories of the speaker are supported by the imprimatur of the editors of the Boston Globe! In truth, an advice column appearing in the newspaper more than 100 years ago,contained what the writer stated was his personal opinion, namely, the words “native born” and “natural born” appearing in the Constitution in relation to the word “citizen” mean two different things. Second, it disingenuously sustains a fabricated claim that the words “native born” and “natural born” can honestly be conflated to mean the same thing and then uses the personal off-the-cuff opinion of the columnist to hyperbolically deflate such contention. Ha, the ‘legal’ pundit pedaling this tripe calls the Globe piece a “crucially relevant article.” Straw dogs. As I indicated in the beginning of the present post, following the basic rules of statutory interpretation necessarily leads to the conclusion that, because the Drafters used “native born” in one section of the document and “natural born” in another section; the courts would assume they intended “native born” and “natural born” to mean two different things!

    First, it falsely implies the theories of the speaker are supported by the imprimatur of the editors of the Boston Globe! –

    – where does it do that?
    oic so you think there was a disclaimer? hmm so if he just said a writer for globe and not headlined the globe suit you? doesnt change his point that the questioning and the the thoughts of then is same as now and is just as legitimate.
    far as i can tell-disregarding the hype “crucially relevant “, naturalborncitizen was only showing “Obama’s eligibility is, at best, questionable” and saids a growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be President. ” replacing with well known legal thought of prominent men works for me.

    your num2 i just dont understand- but I suspect it is your important point and i do want to understand it.

    I am a fan of both of you and I am a conservative – i dont see any liberal bias in any of your analysis (I do in your west post- sorry couldnt resist) or the proper way to handle it.

    even leo saids:”I hope there is enough respect for those principles in state houses to get the job done because your federal legislators have sold you out. Once again, it’s up to the states to get it right.”

    your way:”we can confront anyone who Certified to state election officials in applicable states, candidate Obama was qualified for office, with this question: on what documentary basis did you ascertain beforehand he was a U.S. Citizen? ” is the best way.

    but leo like you saids it will take scotus to deside the other way.
    “By enacting a bill which denies those born with dual allegiance to POTUS ballot access, the issue should end up at the doors of the Supreme Court.”
    To me your 2 sites work for me and for what i need to know- why the contempt?

    markcon: I advised people in the summer of 2008, if you are concerned about Obama’s eligibility for office, keep his name off the ballot. I explained, no law required Electors to only elect an eligible President. I pointed out, only some states even require the candidates whose names appear on the ballot, must be qualified for the job. I proposed defining NBC any way you want, insofar as this pertains to getting on the ballot, inviting court challenge from aggrieved candidates (or political parties) leading to a SCOTUS definition of NBC. Almost 3 (three) years and hundreds of thousands of dollars and lies later, all of the more high profile characters in the ‘eligibility saga’ have come around to realizing, the only way to redress eligibility is through the states. The proof of who is leading and who is following, is all over the internet.

    Phrases like “federal legislators have sold you out” have no place in rational discourse. I can imagine that, inundated with correspondence saying things like, ‘Obama is not a NBC because…,’ when no legal definition exists of NBC; or ‘the COLB isn’t real because the shadows on the seal go this way instead of that’; or ‘Lt. Col. Lakin is a hero for disobeying orders’ (notwithstanding at trial he admitted he was wrong and offered to deploy) many federal legislators who might at some earlier point been susceptible to listening to reason have tuned out all ‘birthers’ after years of these histrionics.

    You say you are a “fan” of both of us. I could not care less what you think about me; I only care that you understand the work. Because as long as you credit work that says, the court (judicial branch) was wrong not to breach the separation of powers by refusing to order the SoS (the executive branch) to perform a specific function not spelled out in the law (legislative branch) then, you have no clue about the function or import of the system of governmental checks and balances set up by the the Founders and Drafters. As long as you credit work that complains, the JSCOTUS are “WUSSIES” for rejecting what they determined was an infirm legal argument supporting a petition that the court should breach the separation of powers, however heartfelt, then you are as dangerous to our Constitutional Republic as those people who stole the 2008 D nomination and whose motives appear to many of us to be less authentic. I have been pointing out the flaws in the ‘legal’ pursuits of these hucksters for years now, hoping that readers would abandon their personal attachments to one character or another and focus, instead, on the quality of the work. In that way, I hoped people would become more active guardians of our politics.

    But as long as I am the only blogger telling people to organize in their states – literally, to stand on the steps of their state capitals – to persuade A’sG to investigate the citizen complaints of election fraud (viz a viz getting Obama’s name on the ballot); then, it would appear, these charlatans are more interested in personal aggrandizement than in solving the problem of Presidential eligibility. Why? Maybe just because it wasn’t their idea, first. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. constitutionallyspeaking says:

    FYI, I didn’t get these new 1859 historical finds from Donofrio, if he posts them, he got them from me and I’m sure he will attribute them appropriately as he always does.

    I also respectfully disagree that SCOTUS is the final definer of Article II NBC. Congress & the Exective are equal and thus have the same authority. We have heard much from those in all departments and now we absolutely have a definitive answer.

    constitutionallyspeaking: Disagree away; but then, there is that provision called the Constitution. And Marbury v. Madison, of course. ADMINISTRATOR

    • constitutionallyspeaking says:

      Marbury v Madison upholds my conclusions. If you disagree, please show me where in that ruling I am wrong.

      constitutionallyspeaking: You wrote earlier, “I also respectfully disagree that SCOTUS is the final definer of Article II NBC. Congress & the Exective are equal and thus have the same authority. We have heard much from those in all departments and now we absolutely have a definitive answer.” Of course, you may disagree; but your opinion is not based on fact. Thinking in terms of “checks and balances” might clarify the issue. M v M stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and that no Congressional law which violates the Constitution can stand. In my earlier Reply, I only provided a link to the summary of the case; maybe it would help your understanding if you read the whole decision.


      If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

      It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. [p178]

      So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

      If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply….
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html

      ADMINISTRATOR

      • constitutionallyspeaking says:

        You obviously didn’t read my article either. The debate is on the definition of Article II natural born and in 1995, SCOTUS rendered a decision which completely and simply puts the answer to rest. NO current SCOTUS decision required. We merely need to follow the intent of 14th Amendment as it was written. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562. http://supreme.justia.com/us/513/561/case.html

        It is this kind of evidence that we need to take to our US & state Reps and state SOS’s to convince them to pass proper legislation. What Rand Paul has proposed is absolutely atrocious and will shred even further the intent of the founding generation who put in place our citizenship laws. So while I welcome all that you do, it seems that you have overlooked the simplest and common sense rule of interpretation.

        constitutionallyspeaking: Okay, now I get it. You have your own blog – up to this point I had failed to notice one of the links you provided was to your own blog – and you obviously spent considerable time and energy devising your own theories of statutory construction and Constitutional jurisprudence. Only, now that I have rejected your ‘legal’ reasoning, this reasoned rebuttal might serve to discredit your work.

        Does your state, SD, have ballot eligibility laws? If not, surely, you could frame your petition to state legislators in the context of limiting the expenditure of state election resources to printing the names of those candidates qualified for office. After you get that law, you can write whatever definition you want of NBC, as long as it is not capricious and arbitrary or contrary to law.

        If you have such eligibility laws, well, let’s work on a citizen complaint of election fraud to your AG. ADMINISTRATOR

        • constitutionallyspeaking says:

          admin – and you obviously spent considerable time and energy devising your own theories of statutory construction and Constitutional jurisprudence

          jbjd, I hardly devised anything of my own. I merely used common sense and the rules laid out by Story for us to use. It was he that stated: In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.

          So if I missed something, why do you not point it out directly to me so I can research & study further where I went wrong? The legalese do not have the market on constitutional interpretation and there was good reason the founders set up our system to operate as such. Saying that only those with law degrees have the right & the knowledge to expound on constitutional interpretation is an elitist attitude. So while some of my conclusions are in unison with you & Donofrio, there will always remain some that aren’t. Isn’t it wonderful we still live in a country where that can be?

          admin – Does your state, SD, have ballot eligibility laws?

          Our state does have a law that requires that only names of qualified candidates are to be placed on the ballot, however there are no laws yet that absolutely require the SOS to vet those qualifications of candidates for the major parties. What also really gets my goat is that I have a copy of the certified 2008 DNC doc signed by our late SOS and not even the DNC declared the candidates as being qualified under the provisions of the US Constitution while the 2008 RNC one did. But with no laws in place for citizen dispute, my efforts were doomed before I even began. So, that was a total waste of my time.

          Since then, there has been legislation to require that the SOS vet the qualifications as well as attempt to define what a NBC is, however it has yet to make it out of committee and frankly, the language of it would have done more harm then good so I am glad it was tabled.

          But my goal is larger than just presidential qualifications. I contend that until we get our citizenship laws in check we are only going to keep treading water regarding presidential NBC. Our country needs to get back to following the intent the founders that US citizens must have exclusive citizenship to the US, either at birth or naturalization and all others are aliens, whether they be temporary or allowed permanent status, as well as is all their children, whether born here or not. This is NOT the doctrine of Vattel, it is the doctrine of natural law going back to time immemorial which he took from his predecessors. Personally, I see Cicero, Grotious, Locke, Sidney & Aristotle as having more weight on the natual law of citizenship adopted than I do of Vattel. But especially that of Sidney & Locke who’s work weighs heavily on Cicero & Grotious. Regardless, the founding generation was well learned in all.

          constitutionallyspeaking: Please, send me the SD ballot eligibility law ASAP. If you are correct about that law then, I need to see the Certification you reference so that I know whom to name in the citizen complaint of election fraud! Yes; it seems you have missed the whole point of these citizen complaints of election fraud. Having the eligibility law means, anyone submitting to the SoS a Certification of Obama’s Nomination – in most states, this was Nancy Pelosi but in SC, for example, this was Kathy Hensley; and in TX, this was Boyd Richie – guaranteed he was qualified for the job. Sure, in HI, the words ‘according to the Constitution’ were added, like in SC; but this only reflected the specific wording requirements of election laws of those states. In other states, the Certifications said “duly nominated.” Anyway, this is a distinction without a difference, since the DNC rules require the nominee to be Constitutionally qualified!

          Read the citizen complaints in the sidebar so that you understand what I have been talking about.

          If SD had a law in 2008 requiring only candidates qualified for office may appear on the ballot then, anyone submitting Obama’s name to appear on the ballot and swearing he was qualified for office, without first ascertaining whether he is a NBC, committed criminal election fraud. And the state AG should investigate. ADMINISTRATOR

          P.S. I am not offering courses on Constitutional jurisprudence or statutory interpretation.

          • constitutionallyspeaking says:

            admin-Please, send me the SD ballot eligibility law ASAP. If you are correct about that law then, I need to see the Certification you reference so that I know whom to name in the citizen complaint of election fraud

            That road has already been tried & got kicked to the curb. Not by me, but another who was a former state Rep.

            admin-I am not offering courses on Constitutional jurisprudence or statutory interpretation

            I’m not asking you for a course in jurisprdence or statutory interpretation, Prof Eastman as well as Hillsdale staff have been more than gracious in answering my questions. I was just asking you what specific point in my article you disagree with.

            I am a business owner of 30 years who has written many contracts that have stood the scrutiny of a court room without the assistance of a lawyer, so please don’t think I am looking for a free course in the law. One doesn’t have to have a formal jd in order to know the law. Or for that matter, understand how it’s made or interpreted.

            constitutionallyspeaking: You write, “That road has already been tried & got kicked to the curb. Not by me, but another who was a former state Rep.” I have no idea what you are talking about. Until you told me, I had no idea SD was a ballot eligibility state. I never drafted a citizen complaint of election fraud for SD. In case you hadn’t noticed, no such complaint is posted in the sidebar of this blog. So, no one could have filed such a complaint with your state AG. The citizen complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the state legislature; wrong branch of government.

            Where is the SD law I asked you to provide? ADMINISTRATOR

  7. markcon says:

    credit work that complains, the JSCOTUS are “WUSSIES” for rejecting what they determined was an infirm legal argument, same as frauds???

    whining is not illegal yet is it?

    let me put it this way. with out leo I never would of been interested enough to find you.

    “federal legislators have sold you out” I knew you would jump on that! rational discourse involves only what you determine as to what is acceptable? his statement is factual by their refusal to face the subject.

    ‘credit work that says, the court (judicial branch) was wrong not to breach the separation of powers by refusing to order the SoS (the executive branch) to perform a specific function not spelled out in the law (legislative branch)’

    I didn’t know he was taking that approach, which would appose you as you explained, no law required Electors to only elect an eligible . President. I thought he was only concerned with dual stuff.

    its unfortunate that you seem to dislike the term fan- tough- still am.
    your reply seems harsh but not in anyway I can validate- I cant even say its emotional- its factual but feels emotional-
    so be it. I like hearing where you think he is wrong but not at my expense.

    markcon: I am sorry that you feel my reply to your last comment came at your expense; this was not my intention. Let me be more specific. Leo used the legal cause of action called mandamus to ask the court to order the NJ SoS to vet candidate Obama for Constitutional eligibility for President before placing his name on the NJ state ballot. Did NJ law say, a ministerial function of the SoS is to vet the Presidential candidate from the major political party, for Constitutional eligibility before placing his name on the ballot? No. Leo merely implied this ‘duty’ from the oath of office administered to the SoS. But this is not what is required under mandamus. Yes; my answer was “emotional.” People credited Leo’s saga because he is a lawyer and passionately publicized his crusade. But he rested his case on unsound legal footing and was doomed to fail. This rejection of an infirm legal argument does not speak ill of the SCOTUS or of the lower federal (or state) courts. Where passion supplants reason, I call this ‘foot stomping.’ In other words, ‘give me what I want, what I really really want, or I will hold my breath’ (or call you names).

    “Federal legislators have sold you out” belongs in this category. You write, “I knew you would jump on that! rational discourse involves only what you determine as to what is acceptable? his statement is factual by their refusal to face the subject.” As I have often said, just because we elect people to federal offices does not mean, they are spontaneously aware of the intricacies of election law, especially as pertains to the eligibility issue. (This explains why they might ask the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) for a position paper on Presidential eligibility.) And, if the only thing they have to go on, is the over-the-top mailing from constituents as well as others recruited from across the country to drown federal offices in pleas to examine Obama’s eligibility, well, I can understand how they remain uninformed as to the specific issues at play here. What if we had distilled the whole conundrum to this one question: When we asked, why did all of the D’s who Certified to state election officials Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the office of President, to get them to print his name on the ballot, refuse to tell us on what basis they had ascertained beforehand he is a NBC?

    Do a search on this blog for his name to find other specific de-construction of his work (or, to find the contents of emails he has sent me, evidencing more temper outbursts). Search the internet to find my attempts to clarify that he had misread the law by insisting it provided the head of a security agency can withhold classified information from the President if he deems such conduct necessary to maintain national security, in other words, that an inferior of the Executive branch could withhold information from his boss; a conclusion absurd on its face.

    If lay people credit a lawyer who (often) has no idea what he is talking about, then they are not only not learning how their electoral systems works but they are also learning the wrong things about how it works. And, they already were ‘behind the 8-ball’ in this regard. That’s why it was so easy for others with greater knowledge, to steal the 2008 election.

    I am dancing as fast as I can to make up that information deficit.

    And yes, I am very glad you found me. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. jimbrown says:

    Dear jbjd,

    Thanks so much for some clarity on a subject shrouded in a very dense fog even though it seems like it should be an issue clear as a sunny day.

    It’s probably precisely what Obama had in his hand prior to the nomination which led to his election. His lawyers legally gamed that the likelihood of anyone having the ability to thwart his candidacy very low. There was no possibility for hearings a la McCain since he was not a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination prior to the convention. Once he secured the Democratic nomination and the economy tanked, there was simply neither time nor desire to hold the same hearings that would have been negatively spun against the Republicans anyway. Once elected, the same lawyers determined there would be few if any options available for reprieve and anyone questioning his constitutional qualification would be marginalized by supporters and the media alike. Plus, the grief SCOTUS received for involvement in 2000 election that ended in Gore’s loss was a chit the Democrats could call on to discourage SCOTUS from interference in 2008. Obama and his lawyers judged they had a winning hand to proceed with the campaign. I can imagine this discussion with Obama and his close personal lawyers.

    Maybe it is better to simply focus on how awful this administration is and work to get Obama defeated in 2012. This is increasingly becoming the credo of many who oppose this administration and believe the eligibility issue a non-starter.

    Nah, some of us can multi-task. Besides, at some point in the future, I want some questions answered.

    jimbrown: As I have mentioned previously, the record makes clear, this subterfuge necessary to steal the nomination and subsequently, the election was firmly in place by 2007. Watch for the next post, up shortly. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Pete says:

    I respectfully disagree with you.
    “Lie number 1. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in Vattel’s Law of Nations.”……. “ Assuming all that, it is nonetheless absurd to make the leap of logic that says with certainty, the Drafters, having read Vattel’s definition of NBC and understood his meaning, thereby adopted his definition into their text.”
    For the sake of intellectual honesty you had to provide evidence, when you call people liars, that they are in fact lying. Stunning claims require stunning evidence. Therefore, you should have provided other definitions of the term of NBC that were available in 1790 that the founding fathers may have used in writing the Constitution. Then you should have demonstrated that they were familiar with these definitions. Yet, you provide no ‘evidence’ to back your claim that Vattel ‘s wasn’t the main contributor here. I am certain you are familiar with:
    “The Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel on October 5, 1789.
    The book was not returned, nor any overdue book fine paid — with the overdue fee now calculated at about $300,000.
    The missing book came to light when the New York Society Library was restoring its 1789-1792 charging ledger, which features the borrowing history of Washington, John Adams, John Jay, Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, George Clinton, and others
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/20/us-library-washington-idUSTRE64J4EG20100520

    and:
    The Law of Nations and The Constitution
    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html

    I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that the founding fathers were well aware of Vattel’s law of Nations. The only debate I cannot settle is your question of if “understood his meaning, adopted his definition into their text”. The founding fathers understood french, knew and read Vattel’s work, and used it extensively in forming the US Constitution, which is SOLID evidence that they in fact used it for the term NBC. The aforementioned individuals, and please include Madison and Jefferson as readers, were the truly brilliant and gifted thinkers of their time. I suppose that they may not have ‘understood’ Vattel’s writings, but that is in my opinion, intellectually dishonest assumption!
    Your confusing the issue, and misleading the people whom read your blog, by attempting to show that the founding fathers didn’t always use Vattel’s law of Nations (see lie 2 and 3). They were writing a Constitution for a new country, they were under no obligation to use Vattel’s law of Nations throughout the document, as you have noted. Wisely, they took what they wanted from Vattel and incorporated it. In the end they relied heavily on Vattel, but created a unique document.
    I humbly ask, since you have called me a “Liar” that you provide your research that demonstrates that the founding fathers, as listed above whom I have demonstrated relied heavily, but not exclusively, on Vattel’s law of Nations, were familiar and understood any other ALTERNATE definition of NBC in 1790. I would remind you that, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the founding fathers were not that ‘keen’ on all things British. Having won victory against the British by help from the French and French fleet at Saratoga just a few years earlier, they seemed to rely heavily on a French writer!
    I agree with you that the SCOTUS doesn’t have to accept Vattel contribution, the law of nations, or even research the matter. The SCOTUS could rule differently, and use another term for NBC. The problem for the SCOTUS, is if they accept a case, or attempt to address NBC as it pertains to POTUS, they will have to address the simple an irrefutable facts of the above understanding at the time of writing of the Constitution. That is why, in my opinion, “We are avoiding the eligibility issue” come to play http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA
    jbjd, sometimes the truth doesn’t lie between opposing points of view. The great weight of historical evidence demonstrates that John Jay and Washington knew exactly why the Commander in Chief had to be NBC to avoid dual loyalties. http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=joj
    The evidence suggests a fondness for the French, and Vattel’s law of Nations, but an attempt to make a unique document. I have found no credible evidence that the founding fathers were using another definition of NBC other than Vattel’s. However, since you have called this a “LIE” it is intellectually imperative that you now demonstrate evidence to back your opinion of a known and accepted alternate meaning of NBC in 1790, familiar to the founding fathers, consistent with known history and ‘fondness’ of the time. On the other hand, you can simply retract and apologize.
    Pete

    Pete: Assume everything you write is true.

    False Conclusion #1. The ‘fact’ that George Washington took Vattel’s book out of the library in 1789 evidences the Drafters were at least aware of his definition of NBC.

    Any ideas culled from Vattel’s book in 1789 cannot be said to have affected either the language or the intent of the Drafters of the Constitution since the work of the Constitutional Convention completed in 1787 and resulted in a document distributed to the states for ratification, which such document was ratified in 1788, before Washington’s election in 1789. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

    Again, straw dogs and red herrings. I would assume innumerable discussions were had, both on and off the record, concerning the character of the person who would be President and, simultaneously, CiC. I have read several of these. But discussing the merits of these arguments is an intellectual exercise that only wastes time. Even if we all agree on one definition, so what? What are the practical implications of our concurrence, absence a legally binding definition? That is, without a legal definition of NBC, it makes no sense to say, this President is or is not a NBC.

    What does make sense is to challenge anyone who swore he is a NBC to explain the basis for such oath. Especially when it comes to establishing the “C.” ADMINISTRATOR

    • Speak2Truth says:

      >> “The founding fathers understood French, knew and read Vattel’s work, and used it extensively in forming the US Constitution, which is SOLID evidence that they in fact used it for the term NBC.”

      One more point – the Founders had been using Vattel’s reference for over a decade before they wrote the Constitution. They received their first set of copies in 1775, before the Revolution.

      Original French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”

      Literal: “The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

      Official English Translation: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations

      The English translation mirrors the meaning of Natural Born Citizen provided in French, so it’s ridiculous for the Administrator to say that the notion was introduced in the 1789 English edition. What’s more, there were two prior English translations, the 1760 London Edition (also before the Revolution) and the 1787 New York Edition.

      It is noteworthy, as you and others have pointed out, that the Founders had NO DISAGREEMENT about the meaning of the term, which would surely have arisen had they more than one source for the term that indicated different meanings.

      There is NO EVIDENCE that they meant anything but what is spelled out in their legal reference, “Law of Nations”.

  10. constitutionallyspeaking says:

    admin-You write, “That road has already been tried & got kicked to the curb. Not by me, but another who was a former state Rep.” I have no idea what you are talking about. Until you told me, I had no idea SD was a ballot eligibility state. I never drafted a citizen complaint of election fraud for SD. In case you hadn’t noticed, no such complaint is posted in the sidebar of this blog.

    I did notice and that is why I responded as I did.

    admin-So, no one could have filed such a complaint with your state AG. The citizen complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the state legislature; wrong branch of government.

    I didn’t say the complaint was filed “with” the legislature, I said the complaint was file “by a former legislator”. I’m not stupid.

    Where is the SD law I asked you to provide?

    http://www.sdsos.gov/ – knock yourself out, but you won’t get anywhere. Until we fix the national laws, my state will do nothing. Jackley, just like his predesessor Long, won’t touch this subject.

    Our state has just enough spineless legislators who tend to heed to political correctness first on some issues. Here is the current proposed citizenship legislation which absolutely does “nothing” but some some fultie=le attempt to appease aka shut us up. Too bad its not going to work, because we are not letting go of it until it is corrected, but as you will see, our days are but 1 left for the year and so now we must move on and concentrate on those in DC:

    http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1199P.htm

    It concludes: This compact does not take effect until Congress has given its consent, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

    So to think that the SD legislature or the AG will address or make any changes to the election laws prior to DC addressing the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the 14th is well, quite naive.

    constitutionallyspeaking: I pressed the link you provided in response to my request that you follow up on your claims by sending me the SD ballot eligibility law (in effect in 2008). The link led me to the web site of the SD SoS. Until you send me the language of the actual law, along with its citation and a link to the SD statute, our communication is put on hold. (“Knock yourself out,” indeed.) ADMINISTRATOR

    • Floyd says:

      Lol @ the other anonymous. McCain is the Lizard Man…Now, Obama didn’t even consdier himself “black” until he got to college when he found it was advantageous… to cover up poor performance. Now, having been black all my life… I find that a bit offensive. Almost as offensive as his wife saying she’s never been proud of America … until she got some of what she felt she deserved. What we have here is a man with black skin who doesn’t think he’s black, and a “black woman” who doesn’t think she’s an American unless SHE is being served… and you wonder why people are contentious over them? The point remains, the man wasted time and money COVERING UP something that was just as easily revealed if he had nothing to hide… He’s just like Nixon and Clinton. Maybe it’s his “white side” coming out? … good grief. Just accept that no matter his color, he’s a liar and a politician. He will always say one thing and do another unless it serves HIM (and his wife is the same) That doesn’t make him black, or white.. it makes him a liar and a thief. Just like most other politicians.

  11. ksdb says:

    Your debunking of “Lie #1” is what you call a strawdog. We know the framers of the Constitution were familiar with Vattel’s Law of Nations because it was referenced in the Journals of the Continental Congress, such as the passage found at the top of the page in this link:

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=029/lljc029.db&recNum=398&itemLink=D?hlaw:3:./temp/~ammem_67tA::%230290399&linkText=1

    Ben Franklin specifically references using and sharing the book with his colleagues in a letter dated Dec. 9, 1775:

    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.”

    The Supreme Court references Vattel’s definition of natural citizenship as early as 1814 in the Venus case:
    “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

    “‘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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.'”

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

    Yes, it’s dicta, but it certainly shows an awareness and legal appreciation for the definition. The SCOTUS went further in Minor v. Happersett, while not citing Vattel by name, using his definition nearly verbatim:

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens …”

    Justice Waite cited this definition to explain the term as it appears in the Constitution in Art. II Sec. I, and to explain why he was rejecting Virginia Minor’s claim of being a citizen via the 14th amendment.

    In the Wong Kim Ark case, Justice Gray cites this same definition and emphasizes that Minor was found to be a citizen by jus soli and jus sanguinis circumstances in that decision:

    “Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, …”

    In effect, he was upholding or at least respecting the Minor decision, so he had to make a different argument for declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen.

    The dissent in Wong Kim Ark cites Vattel by name and gives the exact definition:

    “Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    This is a consistent treatment of this concept and one which the Supreme Court said was the nomenclature of the framers of the Constitution. While these cases did not specifically deal with the eligibility of a presidential candidate or de facto president, in two of the cases, the definition of NBC is tied directly to the eligibility clause in the Constitution. How does one come up with a stronger, more compelling definition than that?

    Also, you make a bizarre argument that native-born means something different than natural born, but in this definition, natural born is used to describe ‘the natives.’ The natives are those persons who are born in the country to parents who are citizens. Even Justice Gray avoided using the term “native-born” when talking about the 14th amendment. Instead he used the term “citizenship by birth,” but made a distinction that it was defined by the constitution, while NBC was defined OUTSIDE the constitution.

    ksdb: You and so many others use this phrase so as to restrict NBC status to only those born here of 2 (two) citizen parents:
    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens …” It says nothing of the sort. It only says, there is no question these are natural born. As to other iterations of birth – one citizen parent, unknown parentage (adoption), etc. – the court in that case is conceding these variations have not been considered or produced conclusions. And it is not producing a conclusion here, either. Rather, the court is merely saying, no one has ever questioned whether a person born here, both of whose parents are U.S. citizens, is a natural born citizen.

    That’s the same nebulous reasoning that requires a rejection of the insistence on dual parent citizens resulting from the non-binding resolution S511. People said, ‘See, the Senate said, John McCain was natural born as both parents were citizens!’ But that resolution referred specifically to John McCain, both of whose parents were citizens. And even as the case you cited said, ‘No questions have been raised as to natural born citizenship status in cases where both parents are citizens and the child is born in the U.S.’ In other words, this is more of a historical record than a legal conclusion. What if only one of his parents was a citizen? Then, the resolution might have found natural born citizen status based on the fact, one of his parents was a U.S. citizen. Because no court has specifically excluded this iteration from the NBC paradigm, in a ruling on point.

    As to who read what before writing the Constitution, well, the record is clear. The Drafters read everyone, rejecting the writings of some, incorporating the writings of others. Read to learn what to do as well as what not to do. In the end, they wrote a Constitution in which Article III courts would decide what they meant. And when it comes to NBC, the courts still have not said what they meant. ADMINISTRATOR

    • ksdb says:

      You said, “It says nothing of the sort.” Ummm, it’s an exact quote, dear.

      Then you wrote: “It only says, there is no question these are natural born.” … as “distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This is the rest of the quote that Minor uses. If you weren’t born of citizen parents, you were an alien or foreigner who had to naturalize in order to become a citizen. Waite says some authorities go further and include as citizens (not natural born citizens, which is a distinct class of citizen), those born in the country without regard to the citizenship of the parents, but of this CLASS of citizenship, he says there is doubt. Thus, he narrows down the definition of natural born citizens specifically to the children of citizens.

      You wrote: “As to other iterations of birth – one citizen parent, unknown parentage (adoption), etc. – the court in that case is conceding these variations have not been considered or produced conclusions.” It doesn’t say that at all. It acknowledges two ways to become a citizen … either by birth or naturalization. Then it narrows down that children born of citizens are natural born citizens. Others may be citizens, but there is doubt about their citizenship. This doesn’t mean they can still be natural born citizens.

      You wrote: “Rather, the court is merely saying, no one has ever questioned whether a person born here, both of whose parents are U.S. citizens, is a natural born citizen.” Well, no, the court is talking about natural born citizenship because in its opinion, Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen. They rejected her claim that her citizenship was not due to the 14th amendment because she was already a natural born citizen. For anyone not born of citizen parents (plural), the court would have to decide if he or she is a citizen, which is what the court did in the Wong Kim Ark decision. Ark did not fit the definition of NBC, so Gray used the 14th amendment to declare him to be a citizen, but predicated upon his parents having permanent domicil and reckoning that the Constitution (via the 14th amendment) outweighed a treaty with China (which the dissent disagreed with).

      You wrote: “That’s the same nebulous reasoning that requires a rejection of the insistence on dual parent citizens resulting from the non-binding resolution S511.” This is a strawdog. I didn’t say anything about S511. Focus on the actual point.

      You wrote: “And even as the case you cited said, ‘No questions have been raised as to natural born citizenship status in cases where both parents are citizens and the child is born in the U.S.’” The case I cited did not say this at all. This is your paraphrase and a poor one. From there you speculate on something that is not supported by any case that I’m aware of.

      You wrote: “As to who read what before writing the Constitution, well, the record is clear.” Yes, it is. They obviously read and respected Vattel, which undermines the premise of your list of lies. The court clearly respected this work as a guide. You said, “And when it comes to NBC, the courts still have not said what they meant.” Sorry, but I’ve shown otherwise. It used a clear definition of natural born citizenship and set it apart as a class of citizenship that is distinct from other types of citizenship at birth. Of this, there is no doubt.

      ksdb: As usual, your comment is all about obfuscation. But even assuming just for the sake of argument your flawed reasoning is sound, so what? Waste of time speculating… Stop misdirecting.

      On what documentary basis did Nancy Pelosi or Alice Germond or Boyd Richie or Kathy Hensley ascertain Obama is a NBC, before swearing he was, to state officials in ballot eligibility states, to get them to print his name on the 2008 ballot? Because when we ask, none of these people will tell us! ADMINISTRATOR

      • ksdb says:

        My comment is about accuracy. Drivel about supposed “lies” as you have posted is the real obfuscation. What you post is an exercise in futility or vanity, especially when you pretend you’re challenging Pelosi, Boyd Richie or anyone else. Why should they be expected to present a documentary basis for determining Obama is an NBC when you can’t even decide how it’s defined?? THAT is the epitome of what you call “nebulous reasoning.”

        Under the definition I pointed out, we need to see proof of citizenship for Obama and both his parents. Under your scenario, we’re left fishing and/or hoping for imaginary documentary evidence for which there is no compelling rationale or expectation to produce. If you can’t articulate a definition for natural born citizen, how do you determine what documents are or are not appropriate for Pelosi and the others to have used declare Obama to be eligible for office??

        ksdb: If the D’s who Certified Obama is a NBC in states with ballot eligibility laws, had no documentary basis for such determination then, they committed ballot fraud. Whatever they defined as NBC. Of course, we can all agree, the Constitution and the federal courts have clearly defined C. (I am only repeating previous writings on this subject, scattered throughout this blog.)

        bob strauss says:
        September 23, 2009 at 19:42
        One thing is certain, the law makers, and the majority of the people, in this country, need an education on the Constitution, and the qualifications, to be president.

        It is hard to tell if the electors,
        were ignorant, or crooked, either way they screwed up big time.

        Nancy Pelosi, definitely needs, some education, as to the meaning of natural born citizen.

        bob strauss: Know what’s funny? When we set up eligibility panels in the states, we can define NBC any way we want. If the party wants to use our state ballots then, their candidate has to fulfill our definition of NBC. If they don’t like our definition, they can take us to court; or stay off our ballots. Because until the federal appeals court defines NBC then, one definition is as good as another. And we will do this by the next general election. But at a minimum, NBC certainly means, born in the U.S.A. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Mike says:

    Can we look at the only reference in actual codified law for the term “natural born Citizen” for at least a portion of the answer. This is in reference to the Naturalization act of 1790. In this naturalization act we find that Congress describes a condition where one was CONSIDERED AS a “natural born Citizen”. I point out the qualifying words because so many say that the act “defines ‘natural born Citizen'” – but it does not. It merely indicates who can be considered as nbC. Even SR 511 incorrect cites this act as ‘defining nbC’ (“Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;”)

    To meet this criteria one could be born overseas but had to be born of two citizen parents. In simple terms this act did exactly what ksdb advocates – it waives any reference to jus soli and relies solely on jus sanguinis to give, through man made law, a status that is CONSIDERED a “natural born Citizen”. Thus, would it be proper to assume that at least part of ‘the definition’ is provided in this act – jus sanguinis?

    We all know that the following version of the act completely eliminated this reference. Maybe Congress realized it had overrode the Constitution with their act and thought that to be wrong. But for 5 years we did have a law that defined what it took to be CONSIDERED an nbC – it was solely jus sanguinis. Thus, can it not be reasoned that jus sanguinis is at least part of the elusive definition.

    Mike: No. We don’t know the reason this law was re-written but, assuming you are correct in guessing, legislators determined their definition of NBC was wrong. Invariably, the courts would have agreed with them.

    I have opinions as to the definition of NBC; so do millions of others. Nothing means anything until the lady with the scales, sings.

    Reading through this blog, you will find I have repeated several times, I could not care less as to the definition of NBC. The mere fact that none exists means, these endless discussions as to the definition are only an intellectual exercise, at best. At worst, they are intentional misdirection.

    But, as I have also said, we know what is a C. I repeat, how did Nancy Pelosi or Boyd Richie or Kathy Hensley know he was even a C before swearing he was, to state election officials in states with ballot eligibility laws, to get them to print his name on the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

  13. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    Any Texans want to comment on the Texas Delegate Selection Plan?

    “(Austin, TX) – In accordance with the delegate selection process governed by the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, the Texas Democratic Party is pleased to announce that our Texas Delegate Selection Plan is posted on our website. You can view it here. There is an open comment period on the Plan until April 8th, 2011. Anyone who would like to offer a comment on the Plan is invited to email DelegatePlan@txdemocrats.org.”

    http://www.txdemocrats.org/2011/03/09/texas-delegate-selection-plan-important-information/

    Why does “SECTION II, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, A. BALLOT ACCESS” allow anyone eligible or ineligible to be placed on the primary ballot as a presidential nominee but Texas law requires, for the general election, that “the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law”, meaning “eligible to the office of President” as stated in the U.S. Constitution?

    Why aren’t the “ATTACHMENTS TO THE DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN” made available to the public for review?

    Just a couple of questions come to mind…

    azgo: OMG! The ‘fix’ is already in, in TX! Your comments point to this: the TX plan offered up by the TDP violates TX statutory law. And the D’s are waiting for citizens of TX to point this out? GEESH! Hell, the head of the TDP, Boyd Richie, is a lawyer!

    I need to reply to your comments in a post. I know despite my many cautions, not everyone reading the articles on this blog, reads the Comments. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. It bothers me that this news came from a citizen of AZ and not TX. Haven’t we learned that hyper-vigilance is necessary to preserve the integrity of our electoral process from special interests called political parties?

  14. Mick says:

    Your “update”, of course, is nonsense. Pontifications of a sharp mind dulled by relativism. True, SCOTUS is the ultimate arbitter of Constitutional terms, but the Constitution was written to be understood by the common man. 200 years of lawyers playing telephone with it, and their own inflated egos that insist that stare decisis overrides any original meaning, have rendered it mush. Any law that is against the Constitution is null and void. If there is no meaning of the term natural born Citizen that is actionable, then the states have nothing to base any vetting of a candidate, and A2S1C5 is uninforcable. Thus is the end result of your relativist, circular firing squad logic. I would expect no less from one who admires both Howrd Zinn and Hillary Clinton. The meaning is well known from over 200 years ago, and is expressed consistantly over that time. I laugh at the nonsense you write, but it is also a sad commentary on the state of both the law profession and teaching profession.

    Mick: Howard Zinn was a WWII combat veteran, which conduct I would imagine most citizens of this country would agree has more than earned him the ‘right’ to be free of the scorn of the ‘thought police.’

    You write, “Any law that is against the Constitution is null and void.” Okay; but who gets to decide? For example, assume those states that formerly provided public ‘facilities’ (train cars) to its citizens stratified on the basis of their color, actually believed the definition intended by the term “equal protection” expressed in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was not violated by such conduct. Of course, many of those citizens affected by this conduct believed otherwise, and so challenged the prevailing view of the Constitution. Based on the case brought before the SCOTUS, it ruled, “separate” can still mean, “equal.” (Plessy v. Ferguson).

    For the next 6 decades, many citizens still believed the SCOTUS had gotten it wrong. And an argument was re-submitted to the court, using better evidence, in a case involving public education services. This time, rejecting stare decicis, the court ruled, “equal” cannot exist when the government provides services to people separated by their race. (Brown v. Board).
    http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/afam/afam-brown.html

    This is what “checks and balances” is all about. According to the Constitution’s delegation of power to the SCOTUS to interpret what the document means; separate was equal during the 6 decades between Ferguson and Brown. Of course, this does not mean, states engaged in separating the provision of services by race, notwithstanding Plessy; or that, state constitutions did not prohibit such segregation.

    You mistakenly conflate defining NBC for the purpose of establishing eligibility for POTUS; with establishing eligibility for having the state print a name on the ballot. I have been advocating that states set ballot eligibility, only. In fact, I maintain, absent a Constitutional amendment; this is the only way to finally get a legal definition of the term (which must come from the federal appellate court, which includes the SCOTUS).

    ADMINISTRATOR

  15. […] morning, I Replied to a Comment sent in by “Mick” on DEFINITION on DEMAND, which was originally posted 1 (one) month ago.  In hindsight, I think the ideas we expressed in […]

  16. […] In the interest of time, instead of writing that Post, I will re-Post that conversation. Micksays: April 14, 2011 at 07:55(Edit) […]

  17. slcraig says:

    Notwithstanding the historical understanding embraced by the Framers, the various ‘dicta’ of Congressional speeches and within Judicial Opinions or the public perceptions to the contrary, there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    I’ve come to realize that in order for the SCOTUS to garner the COURAGE to take up a case, whether presented as a Political Question or as a Citizenship Question it is necessary for the ‘national Will’ to be apparent and in demand of an answer.

    In other words, there MUST be a Political Will in order to get a Judicial Opinion on this subject.

    Political Will being the Will of the People as long as we remain a Representative Republic at the Federal and State levels.

    Challenges to State Election Laws need to be filed based on the premise that without a “legal” definition all State Election Laws are repugnant to the Constitution when the Constitutional prerequisite imperative requirement is ignored.

    The same with the Federal Election Commission.

    It can even be argued that there can be NO legal POTUS/V-POTUS without a “legal” definition upon which to base conformity to the needs of the Constitution.

    IMO.

    (Both are being prepared along with another Petition to SCOTUS, however, the more the merrier and a stronger expression of Political Will))

    slcraig: I am so glad you wrote this comment because it provides an opportunity to clarify several points previously explored on this blog which, obviously, require reinforcement. First, let me commend your realization, no definition of NBC exists absent a ruling from a federal appellate court, this is what it means. Also, you are correct in focusing on state election laws as the starting point for a consideration of how to reach the courts for a definition of NBC. Now, here is where we part ways.

    1. Political will, in general, may provide the impetus for courts to both hear cases and, rule in particular ways. (We often couch this political nuance as a ‘public policy’ argument.) But with respect to the several cases impinging on Presidential eligibility, thus far, I have seen no case filed thus far that encompasses a legally cognizable action. Thus, the consideration of politics or public policy has never even been reached by the court.

    2. The case that could reach the federal appellate court is this: the state defines Presidential eligibility for the sole purpose of getting the name of the candidate Constitutionally eligible for office onto the ballot; and the aggrieved candidate charges the state has no right to define NBC, for the purpose of determining eligibility for office. However, even this might not reach the court because, how the state defines NBC for the ballot will not preclude the election by Electors of that person, absent another law requiring state Electors to elect only someone whose name appeared on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

    • slcraignbc says:

      Well, I do not want to give advance notice to those who might oppose the initial challenge, but suffice it to say that the number of “Respondents” named, and served notice, will be those beyond the State Election Board and Sec0State, far beyond.

      As for attempting to get a State to identify the circumstances of, (define), a U.S. natural born Citizen, I tried that with AZ way back. They declined because they did not want to be sued by the Fed over it and chose to pass their Immigration Bill instead, and got sued and called racist to boot.

      I would support any State’s Right to do so, but with so little concern for the subject of U.S. Citizenship in general and a U.S. natural born Citizen specifically I won’t hold my breath, noting that the Fed would have no choice but to sue because it puts to lie the ‘policy citizenship’ doled out by the 14ths misinterpretation.

      When “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise” is acknowledged as the uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship as established in 1790, written, passed and applied to the 1st generation Founding U.S. Citizens then the absurdity of “anchor babies” is exposed which leads to the understanding that the “collective naturalization declaratory born U.S. citizen” was / is meant to cure the circumstance of otherwise being born STATELESS insofar as national character is concerned. The children of “alien foreign nationals” do NOT produce Stateless children.

      • jbjd says:

        slcraignbc: AZ has no ballot eligibility law and so, has no forum for applying a definition of NBC. That is, unless a state allows only candidates eligible for the office sought, to have their names printed on state ballots then, there is no opportunity to apply any definition of NBC for the sole purpose of getting on the ballot. And I am not sure what 1790 law defining citizenship you mean; the only 1790 law I have seen, was repealed shortly thereafter. ADMINISTRATOR

        • slcraignbc says:

          I am NOT a resident of AZ. The State I reside in has sufficient Election Laws to commence an action.

          And if your understanding of the Repealed ‘foreign born provision” of the 1790 Act means that U.S. natural born Citizens no longer exist, well, you’re wrong. However if you meant that the “foreign born” nbC’s and “native born” nbC’s were being concurrently produced during that period but under differing circumstances other than “place”, well, you’d still be wrong.

          Both were being produced by virtue of the uniform Rule established with the 1790 Act and that was reiterated in the 1795 / ’98 and every subsequent Act, i.e., “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.”

          Reconciliations are necessary for certain Acts that had incidental effects on the nature of U.S. Citizenship, such as the 1922 Cable Act that ended the patriarchal doctrine of coverture.

          But the 1790 Act ESTABLISHED that a U.S. natural born Citizen was produced by the wife of a U.S. Citizen father, anywhere in the world from March of 1790 to January 1795 and only within the limits of the U.S. thereafter.

          What part of “established uniform Rule” are you struggling with…???

      • Speak2Truth says:

        We are pretty much in agreement on all that. Our nation’s original understanding of citizenship inheritance is clear on the point that the child inherits the citizenship of the Father. Surely, a person born on US soil to an alien Father is understood to still be a citizen of that alien State.

        Likewise, our own laws recognize that a child born abroad to an American Citizen is not stateless – but is an American Citizen.

        It’s amazing how much effort has been put into convoluting and confusing these issues, to destroy our national sovereignty and our nation’s ability to defend its citizenry and the office of President.

        • jbjd says:

          Speak2Truth: I disagree that the definition of citizen is fixed at any point in time, so as to apply to any other point in time. As I have written here several times, Congress defines who is a citizen, through the U.S. Code. And at the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, he was not a citizen, notwithstanding his father (and his mother) surely were. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Speak2Truth says:

      >> “no definition of NBC exists absent a ruling from a federal appellate court”

      Oh, the definition exists and is clearly spelled out:

      “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations

      Perhaps what you meant to say is that there is no ENFORCEMENT, that the Constitutional requirement is being freely ignored, because the Supreme Court declined to take the case that might have resulted in actual enforcement. Thus, the law-breaking will continue until the court grows the courage to ruled on a violation of it and prescribe punishment of the offender.

      • jbjd says:

        Speak2Truth: No; I said what I meant. (Please, stop insisting here that a book is the basis of any law. I have refuted your contention with facts including linking to the U.S. Code, in which Congress uses that phrase to mean a general approach to acceptable standards of behavior in a civilized world. You will be unable to compel my change of heart, however heartfelt your argument. We are a country of laws, and not men. ADMINISTRATOR

        • Speak2Truth says:

          >> “no definition of NBC exists absent a ruling from a federal appellate court”

          Then this is simply incorrect. Laws have meaning, whether or not a particular case has been brought to court in which it is alleged the law has been violated.

          The definition of the legal term exists. All that is absent is a court case in which someone is accused of violating it, so that accusation can be resolved and remedied.

          The definition is spelled out plainly and clearly for all to see.

          “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations

          We have no evidence of the Founders seeing or even pondering any other definition than the one in the legal reference that they had used for over a decade before writing the Constitution.

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: I keep repeating myself. You write, “Laws have meaning…” Yes, of course they do. And who gets to say what they mean? The SCOTUS. And even they change their minds, on the big things. (Does the combination of the common word “separate” paired with the Constitutionally material word “equal” a bell?) ADMINISTRATOR

      • slcraignbc says:

        I failed with THAT argument 5 times in various venues before I came to my senses.

        I hope you will soon.

        I revisited Minor v. many, many times and it finally dawned on me that I misunderstood the admonition: “for that RESORT must be made elsewhere” …….. the 1st response is to look at Vattel and reconcile with English Common Law and Queen Anne Statutes with additional reconciliations with Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli………..

        …..but you know what…..Justice Waite RESORTED to the 1790 ’95 / ’98 Acts ” .. to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization when he DETERMINED that Lil’ Virginia was ALREADY A U.S. Citizen under EXISTING LAWS and did not need the 14th for HER U.S. Citizenship, in FACT, she was born a U.S. natural born Citizen, albeit without suffrage or Independent Citizenship right, as she was born Female…….

        Look for yourself, and know that the “language and vernacular” of the Founders did not ONLY include Vattel, but ALSO the language and vernacular of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, which is the form of the COTUS.

  18. […] Finally, Leo again raises the specter of Vattel. For goodness sake, give up that ghost! DEFINITION on DEMAND […]

  19. Speak2Truth says:

    Quote: “Let us further assume that before deliberating on their own treatise, better known as the U.S. Constitution, the original drafters had access to Vattel’s tome, considering such variables including the date and place of publication, language, and availability; and that they did, indeed, read his definition of NBC before drafting our Constitution.”

    No assumption is necessary. The historical evidence shows us this is the fact.

    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting…” – Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

    We also know George Washington signed a copy out from the New York Society Library before attending the Constitutional Convention:

    George Washington withdraws “Law of Nations” from New York Society library, 10th item up from bottom,
    https://www.nysoclib.org/collection/ledger/people/washington_george

    We know that Law of Nations is directly referenced by our Constitution…

    “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;” – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

    We know that even the US Supreme Court has recognized its authority on multiple occasions, the most recent I found in 2012.

    US Supreme Court, ARIZONA ET AL v. UNITED STATES (2012) “As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated: “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).”

    • jbjd says:

      Speak2Truth: What is missing from your analysis is evidence that the phrase “Law of Nations” in the Constitution directly referenced Vattel’s book. Do you not see that? Sure, his might have been a well-read book. But the wording on its face does not reference an actual book; offenses are not committed against a book. Rather, they are committed against, or in violation of laws, as enacted or accepted by the maritime nations, whether “laws” or “nations” is capitalized. And, given that the phrase appears in just this particular section of the Constitution evidences, consistent with protocols of legal drafting, that the authors of this work – the Constitution – knew how to modify the passage with this phrase when they intended to, meaning, its omission otherwise is intentional, too. But I am repeating what I wrote in the article… ADMINISTRATOR

      • Speak2Truth says:

        It is worth noting that, when legislating on international issues, the Founders refer to ‘Vattel’ quite frequently. Even Chief Justice John Jay, who first cautioned G. Washington that only a Natural Born Citizen should be President, refers to Vattel in his legal writings. Ex:

        “… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is due to all Nations with whom a State is at Peace, and that this …” – Chief Justice John Jay, who referred to Vattel

        “Law of Nations” is not the law – it provides the explanations of terms and meanings used in law and our founding documents, from the Declaration of Independence onwards. That is why the Supreme Court directly refers to it in cases such as the Dred Scott decision and as recently as 2012 in Arizona v. the United States.

        >> “offenses are not committed against a book.”

        Correct. Just as offenses are not committed against pieces of paper or parchment. But what is ON that paper, or in that book, is the documented legal understandings against which offenses are committed.

        As the Supreme Court case I mentioned explains, Law of Nations provided the explanation of a sovereign state’s permission to exclude foreigners The OFFENSE against that state is unlawful entry…

        “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general…”

        That’s what the Law of Nations says, and the offense against it is to trespass without permission (illegal invasion). Congress legislatively defines the offense and punishment for those who commit the offense.

        We know that the Founders relied heavily upon “Law of Nations”. Did the Constitution grant them authority to define and punish offenses against the principles spelled out thereing? Well, they USE IT AS THEIR REFERENCE when defining and punishing offenses… so it’s fair to say that the Constitution gave them the authority to do so. It might be a stretch to deny that “Law of Nations” is what is actually meant by that clause.

        This directly relates to the Natural Born Citizen clause. There is no mystery as to what it means. It is clearly explained in “Law of Nations”, in the section describing a citizen, a natural born citizen and inheritance of citizenship.

        § 212. 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. …

        • jbjd says:

          Speak2Truth: I read through your comment and remain uncertain what is your point. I already assumed the Drafters read Vattel, so as to point out to my readers, this fact alone fails to establish evidence that these drafters based their work, on his. Nothing you say here alters that fact. I also pointed out, the protocol for (judicial) interpretation of any legal document – and the Constitution is a legal document – demands that where drafters use a particular word or words in one part of the document, this evidences that its absence in another part of the document, was intentional. But rather than repeat my words, let me try another way to bolster my point, the phrase Law of Nations as used in Article I of the Constitution, with respect to the legislative response to piracy, means, ‘the rules nations generally find acceptable with respect to governing use of the high seas’; let me point you to the U.S. Code, which codifies the Constitution into statutory law. “Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.” Note the small “l” and small “n.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1651 ADMINISTRATOR

          • Speak2Truth says:

            There is no reason to ‘assume’ the drafters read Vattel. They have made it clear in their own writings that they read “Law of Nations” and referred to it frequently while dealing with matters of law and the Constitution. Our Supreme Court has done likewise ever since.

            “with respect to the legislative response to piracy” – No no no… Article 1 Section 8 does not limit the use of Law of Nations to legislation regarding piracy. It is much more broad than that.

            “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;” – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

            Empowering Congress to deal with offenses against the Law of Nations stands entirely on its own, separate from piracies and felonies on the high seas.

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: You write that we should interpret the phrase “Law of Nations” in Article I, section 8, so as to apply only to “Offences” against the Law of Nations.” (Yes, I wrote only “piracy” but it was shorthand for the whole phrase.) I disagree with you, as I have indicated. I believe the phrase “Law of Nations” refers to a generally acceptable standard of conduct among nations, including conduct on the high seas. But rather than go back and forth, let’s assume, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. And if I am wrong then, the portion of the U.S. Code enacted to support this section of the Constitution, is wrong, too. See, for example http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag74_user.html ADMINISTRATOR

          • slcraignbc says:

            Referring to “law of nations” and or “Law of Nations” becomes problematic when the fullness of the history of the CONCEPT of “law of nations” originated with Aristotle and was brought into “civil law” practice with a Roman construction; ….

            ” … The law was still further developed, and that into a more ample justice, because of the relations of Rome to foreign states, especially to those with which she had formed treaties, giving their citizens certain civil rights, such as the right to acquire and hold property within the Roman dominion. In order to administer justice, in cases growing out of foreign relations, a special magistrate having jurisdiction over them was annually elected, called pivetor peregrinus.

            As in the cases brought before this pretor the parties were never both Roman citizens, and the transactions involved were hardly ever entered into with reference to Roman law, the principles common to all systems of law were applied as dispensing, in such cases, a more adequate justice.

            Through this liberal form of administering justice between Romans and aliens, a practical acquaintance with the laws of foreign states was acquired by the Roman magistrates, and such rules as seemed common to all systems of laws were recognized as a law of nations, and were made a part 0*” the civil law of the Romans. And thereby the law of nations, because of its universal acceptance as a standard of right and justice, became a part of the positive law of the Romans.

            Under this law the rights and obligations of foreigners, as well as of Roman citizens, were recognized and judicially enforced. According to the teachings of Roman jurists, it was from the law of nations that the law of contracts, such as buying and selling, letting and hiring, loans and bailments, partnership, and the law of slavery so far as it gave the right of property in man, and many other matters, were introduced into the Roman civil law….” Intro. p4&5

            A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading : Comprising a Summary view of the whole of Proceedings in a Suit at Law. by H.J Stephen Third American from the Second London Edition: with Preface, Introduction (etc) by SAMUEL TYLER, LL.D.,

            Point is, lacking a “specific source” wherein to rely for the protections of the law of nations, then the whole of the history of attributions of “the law of nations” must be considered as that which is referenced at A1S8C10. The fact is the Law of Nations Laws, Rules and Regulations ebbed and flowed with the State of Affairs among the various recognized Nations and the Doctrines, Principles and Ideals that such Laws were formed from rose and fell with the ebb and flow like so much flops-um and jets-um upon the seas.

          • jbjd says:

            slcraignbc: Please see my response to Speak2Truth, on 02/13/15 ADMINISTRATOR

          • Speak2Truth says:

            Because I cannot see a ‘reply’ link below your comment…

            This is from your Annotated Constitution link, regarding the Law of Nations clause.

            “the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, “felonies” and the “law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations”

            Notably, Congress relied on the documented “Law of Nations” to do just that. They cite Vattel quite a lot in their legal writings on matters of international law, as did Chief Justice John Jay who insisted on the natural born citizen restriction for the Presidency.

            Because those international understandings were, as the link says, VAGUE, the Founders relied on the documented understandings. “Law of Nations” has been a key reference for that purpose all along.

            It’s fair to claim that the specific book is not what was named by title in the Constitution. But, it is what they USED to fulfill that purpose and the title of the book matching what is described in the Constitution is, perhaps, only a tiny coincidence.

            Just as the description of a Natural Born Citizen, found in that book and apparently no other source used by the Founders, then included in the Constitution, is perhaps only a tiny coincidence.

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: The most salient point in your comment is this: “…whether the terms…”law of nations” were sufficiently precise…” Obviously, if the phrase “Law of Nations”had referenced a particular text then, it certainly would have been sufficiently precise that everyone would know that text was the reference. (Please, read my explanation as to the other recommendations contained in Vattel’s text, which are anathema to the Constitution. If only for consistency sake, one can find that, the Drafters cannot have incorporated all that is written in the Law of Nations, into the Constitution. This begs the question: why is it so critical for people to force the point, “Law of Nations” in Article I of the Constitution refers directly to Vattel’s text when it comes to a definitive meaning of NBC, for example, but not when it comes to separation of church and state in the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights?) ADMINISTRATOR

    • slcraignbc says:

      Lest we forget, it IS the CIRCUMSTANCES at birth that makes an actual “natural born subject, citizen, comrade Zulu or whathaveyou”, however, the political body DOES have the authority over the term of words used to name the CIRCUMSTANCE for whatever the purposes,

      They also have the authority to revise, amend, extend or terminate circumstances or elements of circumstances as may be deemed desirable.

      However, speaking specifically of Citizenship Laws under the COTUS, there are restrictions in place as to what can be done.

      1st it must be accepted that the Preamble to the COTUS serves as sufficient Oath of Naturalization so that those persons eligible as State Citizens were collectively naturalized by the Ratification of the COTUS. This solves the problem that Aristotle observed at Part II Bk III Politics.

      2nd, it must be accepted that the mandate of A1S8C4 gave plenary power to the Congress of the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization under an UNIFORM RULE.

      3rd, it must be acknowledged that A2S1C5 makes an exclusionary distinction between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizens for a purpose that resides within the Executive Articles defining the Executive Branch.

      4th, it must be accepted that the Congress DID establish an uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship naturalization that conforms an alien into the nature of a U.S. Citizen. The characterized uniform Rule construed form the words of the provisions and what those words and provisions then require can be said to be expressed as:

      ” … Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise…”

      5th, regarding children born “considered as” U.S. natural born Citizens the qualifier of :considered as” serves two (2) purposes; (1) so as to provide cause to scrutinize any such person who may aspire to the Office of POTUS when they become of age; (2) more more pertinent is the proof of their counter parts existence, i.e., U.S. natural born Citizens that were / are being born within the limits of the U.S. under the same circumstance except PLACE.

      6th, t must be acknowledged that the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act ended the use of the doctrine of Coverture to determine a woman’s / wife’s/ mother’s citizenship and provides legal acknowledgement of a hyphenated form of citizenship that had no legal standing theretofore, i.e., “dual-citizenship at birth”.

      7th, it must be acknowledged that there has been NO Amendment that has affected of had effect upon the “term of words” that resides in the Executive Articles at A2S1C5, ergo, the circumstances that produced a U.S. natural born Citizen post the collective naturalization of the Founding Generation are the same circumstances that produce a U.S. natural born Citizen today, except for the reconciliations for the repeal of the short-lived foreign born U,S. natural born Citizen provision limiting place to within the limits of the U.S. to parents who are BOTH independently U.S. Citizens at the time of birth.

      (Genesis and Generations of U.S. Citizenship)

      • jbjd says:

        slcraignbc: I read through entire comment but have found no basis for refuting my oft-repeated point: no legal definition exists of NBC where no federal court has found its meaning, in a case on point. The Constitution established the federal courts as the ultimate arbiters of what the document means. And as I keep telling people, if you want to reach a definition of NBC, work on the state level, with respect to the ballot. That is, enact laws requiring that the only candidates who will receive public funding to have their names printed on state ballots, will be those candidates eligible for the jobs they seek; AND make sure rules and regulations are promulgated which define NBC solely for the purpose of getting a name printed on the ballot. No doubt, this will trigger Constitutional (separation of powers) challenges, finally bringing the courts into defining NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

        • slcraignbc says:

          I agree, having offered several Motions for Notice of Adjudicative Fact expressing that very fact; “Currently there is no uniformly acknowledged legal identification of circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the Constitutional usage of the term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen.”

          However, I have considered a Rule 17 Petition based on the 1st Amendment right to Petition the Government for redress of grievance, explaining that the Congress has already spoke to the question of the Petition but the Executive Branch refuses to enforce the effect of the question of the Petition leaving ONLY the SCOTUS, as the Administrative Office of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government,to which to address Petition.

          In the end that observation will be expressed to the Bench.

          • jbjd says:

            slcraignbc: I have no idea what you mean by a “Rule 17 Petition.” But anyway, the mechanism for obtaining “standing” to reach a definition of NBC is through defining NBC in order to get on the ballot in states with ballot eligibility laws; and then, wait for the lawsuits to get into court.ADMINISTRATOR

          • slcraignbc says:

            Below yous say; … ” … slcraignbc: I have no idea what you mean by a “Rule 17 Petition.” But anyway, the mechanism for obtaining “standing” to reach a definition of NBC is through defining NBC in order to get on the ballot in states with ballot eligibility laws; and then, wait for the lawsuits to get into court. …”….

            You say you have no idea what a Rule 17 Petition is and then you express the requisite occurrences to proceed with such a Petition.

            Rule 17 covers the process to seek the “Original Jurisdiction” attention of the SCOTUS which the specific subject matter is when properly presented. (i’ll reserve any further comments on the usages of Rule 17 pending an actual filing of the Motion to proceed.

            Backing up, or dropping down, given that I’ve lost the whereabouts of certain posts, but I had mentioned the Administrative Appeals Court case and you convoluted the actual occurrence by suggesting I went directly to that court seeking Declaratory Judgement.

            The ACTUAL chain of events was that I applied for a Certification of U.S. Citizenship, Form N-500, with the USCIS specifying that I be acknowledged as a U.S. natural born Citizen based on my specific birth circumstances. Of course the declined, and kept the filing fee, whereupon I filed for appeal with the Administrative Appeals Court as provided for in the Regs. When the AAC denied my Appeal I filed Appeal with the 10th Circuit, as provided for in the Regs, The 10th, after several rounds of Motions and Briefs finally dismissed based on the citation of AG Holder that expressed I had no right to sue the USCIS because I was not under Order of Deportation.

            I could have gone again to SCOTUS, but it was at that time that I came to my senses as far as the source of the LEGAL BASIS to identify the circumstances of a U.S. natural born Citizen and the time tolled on that case before I had sorted out in a manner that could be presented to the SCOTUS in the language and vernacular of which they are familiar.

            So I see I have a number of posts hanging in moderation so I will hold my breath til I here from you…………….

          • jbjd says:

            slcraignbc: I had no idea what the case was about in your previous comment. I still have no idea what is a rule 17. But based on the response you received to your filing, I posited off the top of my head a reasonable fact pattern which would fit (my vague understanding of) the circumstances. Again, I laud your creativity and effort. Too bad you didn’t ask me before you expended so much time and effort on what I could have you was an impossible scheme.ADMINISTRATOR

        • Speak2Truth says:

          To claim that the words of the Constitution only have legal meaning if a federal court ‘finds’ the meaning is irrational. The Founders meant every word of it and we are all obligated to uphold and defend the Constitution whether the courts do or not.

          It’s fair to say that if there is dispute over the qualifications of a particular candidate, the court is obligated to perform the research to determine what was meant by the Founders when they wrote it, so that the circumstances may be judged in that light.

          We know that “Natural Born Citizen” was clearly defined in the legal reference used by the Founders that is still in use by even the Supreme Court today when determining the meanings in the text of the Constitution (ex. ARIZONA ET AL v. UNITED STATES (2012)).

          WE can see what the Constitution says and WE can use the same reference used by the Founders, in order to understand the meaning. Until the Supreme Court accepts an NBC case for Presidential eligibility, we don’t know how that particular court might rule in a particular case but that does not change the meaning of “natural born citizen” understood by the Founders.

          It is noteworthy that, with it so clearly spelled out, the Founders saw no reason to even debate the meaning, as one would expect if they had multiple conflicting sources describing the meaning of that term. They apparently did not.

          Original French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”

          Literal: “The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

          Translated to English: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: You write, “To claim that the words of the Constitution only have legal meaning if a federal court ‘finds’ the meaning is irrational. The Founders meant every word of it…” Yes, indeed, the Founders meant to create a federal government dividing the governmental powers among 3 branches: Legislative (to write the laws); Executive (to carry out the laws); and Judicial (to determine whether the laws are Constitutional). See, for example, Marbury v. Madison, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137 By assigning to the federal court(s) the responsibility as the final arbiter of the Constitution; the Founders ensured a unanimity of interpretation across the federal republic. strong>ADMINISTRATOR

          • Speak2Truth says:

            >> “Judicial (to determine whether the laws are Constitutional)”

            Again, something is missing there. The role of the Supreme Court is NOT to examine every law coming out of Congress, or the entirety of the Constitution, to provide meaning or approve their constitutionality. Its role comes up when there is a legal dispute or to try cases in which the Constitution (or Federal law) has apparently been violated.

            The law has meaning. Everyone can see the meaning. It means what it says. Only if there is a case in which it has apparently been violated is the Supreme Court asked to weigh in on the matter.

            We know what Natural Born Citizen means because the Founders had the definition clearly spelled out in their legal reference book. They apparently had no other source from which to draw that particular term and had no disagreement as to its meaning.

            “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – Law of Nations

            The role of the Supreme Court is to try a case in which someone with Standing asserts that it has been violated and demands remedy of the situation. Their JOB was to accept that challenge in the case of Barack Obama, who clearly cannot meet the definition. But, they declined to take the case.

            Judicial cowardice does not change the meaning of the term, which is in plain sight for all to see.

            It only means that the criminal offense is not being remedied.

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: I wish civically minded citizens like you were not so fixated on patently irrelevant minutia. Yes,

              Law of Nations

            was a book by Vattel; arguably, evidence exists that some of the Drafters read

              Law of Nations

            ; but this fails to establish unequivocally that the phrase Law of Nation as this appears in the Constitution, was intended by the Drafters to directly reference that book, or to mimic the treatises with respect to the general law of nations, embodied therein. Indeed, this ‘take’ on that phrase in the Constitution is bolstered by the fact that Congress enacted legislation to codify that section of the Constitution, in which they adopt the general understanding of the ‘law of nations’ as opposed to citing to Vattel’s text. (link previously supplied) ADMINISTRATOR

          • Speak2Truth says:

            You seem to be trying to minimize the significance of “Law of Nations” by saying such things as, “arguably, evidence exists that some of the Drafters read Law of Nations”…

            The evidence of their use of this reference book is not ‘arguable’. Their legislative arguments, dealing with matters of international law and understandings, directly reference Vattel’s work. They refer to it directly in the Constitutional debates. It is indisputable.

            “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress…” – Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

            Chief Justice John Jay used it in his own legal writings. Ex:

            “… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is due to all Nations with whom a State is at Peace, and that this …” – Chief Justice John Jay, who referred to Vattel

            “This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.” – Constitution Society

            While the Law of Nations referenced by the Constitution may not have been exclusively limited to the book by that title, it is beyond ‘argument’ that the Founders did, in fact, use “Law of Nations” by Vattel for the purpose explained in the Constitution. And this heavily used reference is the ONLY source I have seen, so far, that provides the explanation of Natural Born Citizen. No wonder they had no disagreement about it.

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: Assume everything you say in your comment with respect to the meaning of NBC, is correct. Everything. Until the SCOTUS rules on the definition of NBC, in a case directly on point; for the purpose of applying that definition to a particular situation, your interpretations are as good as anyone else’s, including mine. ADMINISTRATOR

          • Speak2Truth says:

            “your interpretations are as good as anyone else’s, including mine.”

            Only if your interpretation conforms to the evidence. This isn’t guesswork or interpretations made of whole cloth. It’s about using the same meaning as the Founders did based on the written references used by them. If your interpretation conflicts with their legal reference text, you should have supporting evidence demonstrating the Founders were likely to have used whatever other reference you found that explains what a Natural Born Citizen is.

            Notice that, with one notable exception, our Government has managed to uphold the Natural Born Citizen requirement all along, without the Supreme Court having to get involved.

            ELIGIBILITY STATUS of the PRESIDENTS OF USA
            .art2superpac.com/UserFiles/image/!Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud.pdf

            If Congress does its job by upholding the Natural Born Citizen requirement, the Supreme Court does not have to rule on violations of it.

          • jbjd says:

            Speak2Truth: I altered the link you provided directing my readers and me to a web site posting material which you presumably believe bolsters your commentary here. (I had completely missed the similarity between that site and your chosen screen identity.) On the contrary; by crediting that source, you made clear why you refuse to grasp my point. ADMINISTRATOR

          • Speak2Truth says:

            Admin: (I had completely missed the similarity between that site and your chosen screen identity.)

            http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/image/Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud.pdf

            Umm… WTH are you talking about? You think this link has some relation to my screen identity? So, you refuse to consider the historical content in it?

            You take the “book burning” approach, because you see the number “2” in that web link? So, I can only use links that don’t have a “2” in the domain name?

            Wow… just wow.

          • slcraignbc says:

            Thank you for the kind words of previous response but I do want to clarify a misconception that arises here.

            The SCOTUS takes up cases when there is a clear ‘conflict of law” that has risen out of the Acts of Congress OR when there is a Grievance arising out of a Constitutional Question. In any event, the QUESTIONS PRESENTED proceeds all other information that a Petition might contain.

            So far, all the cases concerning “eligibility” breached the Separation of Powers Doctrine within the QUESTIONS PRESENTED (imo) and it there that the fine line is found.

            The Constitutional Question of by what circumstances is a U.S. natural born Citizen produced has never been a QUESTION PRESENTED to the SCOTUS, with proof of that being in the Holding out of the USDC Western TN. by Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

            “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
            And;
            “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]

            ….. in other words, if it was SETTLED LAW a U.S. Federal Judge would not come to such conclusions re: the “0”‘s Citizenship status.

          • jbjd says:

            slcraignbc: Absent a link, I cannot examine the text you reference in your comment. But ‘off the top of my head,’ I find no opposition to my insistence, there is no legal definition of NBC, notwithstanding reaching that definition might have been a material issue in an otherwise triable case. ADMINISTRATOR

          • slcraignbc says:

            bjd says:
            February 13, 2015 at 14:56
            slcraignbc: Absent a link, I cannot examine the text you reference in your comment. But ‘off the top of my head,’ I find no opposition to my insistence, there is no legal definition of NBC, notwithstanding reaching that definition might have been a material issue in an otherwise triable case. ADMINISTRATOR

            I assume you are saying you don’t have a copy of the Order in the Tn. case so as to confirm the context of the portion I offered……. I pulled my copy using my Pacer Acct but I do not have a “hosted site” any longer so I can’t make it any easier on you as it is 21 pages with the docket to date included……

            04/13/2012 18
            ORDER denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 4/13/12. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 04/13/2012)

            The point of the Judges analysis was that he COULD NOT DETERMINE if the “0” was a U.S. natural born Citizen because it has NOT been a settled question…….

            …. and that is WHY I RESORT & RELY on the U.S. Law and the Organic Documents that authorizes those Laws, and not otherwise.

            However, Vattel would have been among the 1st to say that a nation has a right to say for its-self who and how their citizens are to be made.

            The Preamble suggests that the Founders anticipated their children would also be members of this new society; … ” … We the people of the United States, in order to …..[snip]……. secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” and in its whole the Preamble serves as an Oath of naturalization conforming those State Citizens into the NATURE of a National, Federal, Sovereign Citizen………………………………..———————————————————————————————-
            The Ratification of the COTUS “made” U.S. Citizens of all the existing State Citizens, and no others; (see Scott v, Minor v, US v Villatto, Talbot v Janson, Collet v Collet).
            ————————————————————————————————-
            The COTUS at A1S8C4 & A2S1C5 requires that “an uniform Rule” binds ALL U.S. Citizens.
            ————————————————————————————————–
            The 1790 Act which DECLARES to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship{implicit}) naturalization provides for the residual effect of acquiring of U.S. Citizenship as being; …
            —————————————————————————————————
            ” … Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise … ”
            —————————————————————————————————-
            When the doctrine of coverture is taken into account in regard to the political character status of women / wives / mothers it is found that ALL children born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father were born as or considered as U.S. natural born Citizens anywhere in the world between March of 1790 and January 1795 when the “place” of birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen became limited to within the limits of the U.S..
            —————————————————————————————————-
            The 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act abrogated the doctrine of coverture and introduced the circumstance of “dual-citizens at birth”, a circumstance that theretofore was not possible (i.e., not legally recognized), under the U.S. Laws.
            ———————————————————————————————————
            Insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned the history of U.S. Citizenship began with the Ratification of the COTUS.
            ———————————————————————————————————
            It IS really that simple.
            —————————————-slc

            Interjecting ANY FOREIGN sources in order to determine what is Constitutional is somewhat antithetical to the Supremacy Clause in the 1st instant and an admission of inability to interpret the statutory construction of the Organic Laws, the COTUS and the Acts made in pursuance thereof in the final analysis.

            When the “law of nations” is referenced in any US. federal court it arises because of a “foreign party” or “international and or maritime concern” in the case and is NOT applicable to conflicts or concerns among U.S. Citizens and States.

          • slcraignbc says:

            What you fail to grasp is the “dicta” is ‘contestable’ when the specifics of the subject were NOT the subject of a case.

            The SCOTUS have NEVER taken up a case in which the Constitutional Question presented asked for the means, (actual circumstances) to identify a U.S. natural born Citizen at birth.

            Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

            “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
            And;
            “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]

            Which PROVES that there is “no uniformly acknowledged legal, ergo, enforceable identification of circumstances that constitutes being born in conformity to the the usage of the term of words at A2S1C5, (U.S.) natural born Citizen.”, notwithstanding the FACT that a number of people would have the masses believe otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: