Showing posts with label vattel's law of nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vattel's law of nations. Show all posts
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Boehner Satisfied on Obama's Natural Born Status
It's not enough to read the Constitution on the House floor, members have to have an understanding of what our founding fathers meant in Article II Section I . Just because you're born in the United States doesn't make you a "natural born citizen". Your parents have to be citizens, and Obama's father was a foreign national. That automatically precludes him from obtaining the executive office.
I suggest that members of the House recite Vattel's Law of Nations next . After all, our founders believed in natural law.
Vattel's Law of Nations
§ 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
At least someone who attended the event in D.C. understands the gravity of our constitutional crisis:
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Arizona to Deny Anchor Babies Birth Certificates
Arizona is drafting a new bill that would deny illegals a birth certificate for their anchor babies. The citizens of that great state are on the front lines, and overwhelmed from the sea of humanity that is pouring over from the southern border; a good portion contains a criminal element.
State Senator Russell Pearce states that illegals are using the 14th Amendment as a wedge issue to come into the United States and take advantage of the welfare state that we’ve created. He is one of the drafters of the anti-anchor baby bill.
The Examiner gives a good account for the reasoning of the 14th Amendment:
According to the 14th Amendment in the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This amendment was projected to grant citizenship to freed slaves and also served as the final answer in Dred Scott v. Standford in 1857 (which held the view that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens). Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican Arizona State Representative, told CNN, "If you go back to the original intent of the drafters...it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens."
After the 14th Amendment was passed, two Supreme Court Cases supported the original intent: The Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins. A number of years later an activist Supreme Court ignored precedence and the congressional record when they ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. This ruling is the catalyst for the country’s immigration nightmare.
Our founding fathers believed in natural law. They were adherents to Vattel’s Law of Nations. George Washington checked out that very book from a New York City library and failed to return it. Here is what Vattel wrote about citizens and nations:
§ 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-21300-Rasmussen-Polls-Examiner~y2010m6d14-Arizona-heads-up-a-new-bill-to-deny-illegal-immigrants-children-citizenship-rights
State Senator Russell Pearce states that illegals are using the 14th Amendment as a wedge issue to come into the United States and take advantage of the welfare state that we’ve created. He is one of the drafters of the anti-anchor baby bill.
The Examiner gives a good account for the reasoning of the 14th Amendment:
According to the 14th Amendment in the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This amendment was projected to grant citizenship to freed slaves and also served as the final answer in Dred Scott v. Standford in 1857 (which held the view that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens). Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican Arizona State Representative, told CNN, "If you go back to the original intent of the drafters...it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens."
After the 14th Amendment was passed, two Supreme Court Cases supported the original intent: The Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins. A number of years later an activist Supreme Court ignored precedence and the congressional record when they ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. This ruling is the catalyst for the country’s immigration nightmare.
Our founding fathers believed in natural law. They were adherents to Vattel’s Law of Nations. George Washington checked out that very book from a New York City library and failed to return it. Here is what Vattel wrote about citizens and nations:
§ 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-21300-Rasmussen-Polls-Examiner~y2010m6d14-Arizona-heads-up-a-new-bill-to-deny-illegal-immigrants-children-citizenship-rights
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
George Washington Fails to Return Vattel's Law of Nations to Library
George Washington checked out two volumes of books from the New York Society Library in 1789. It was during his first term as president of the United States. As reported by The Guardian:
"The library's ledgers show that Washington took out the books on 5 October 1789, some five months into his presidency at a time when New York was still the capital. They were an essay on international affairs called Law of Nations and the twelfth volume of a 14-volume collection of debates from the English House of Commons."
The essay on international affairs is Vattel's Law of Nations. This essay had a profound influence on our founding fathers and the framing of our Constitution. Apparently George Washington found it of such importance that he failed to return it to the library.
A very important provision in that essay is the interpretation of a natural born citizen:
THE LAW OF NATIONS
212. Citizens and Nations
The citizens are the members of the civil society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, and served to all of their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IT OWES TO ITS OWN PRESERVATION; and it is presumed as matter, that each citizen, on entering into society; reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHER IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; and these become true citizens merely by tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming of the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe society in which they were born. I SAY IN THAT ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH, AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.
Are we or are we not a constitutional republic? It is time that we stand up and demand that our elected representatives address whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications that our founding fathers outlined in Article II Section I.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books
"The library's ledgers show that Washington took out the books on 5 October 1789, some five months into his presidency at a time when New York was still the capital. They were an essay on international affairs called Law of Nations and the twelfth volume of a 14-volume collection of debates from the English House of Commons."
The essay on international affairs is Vattel's Law of Nations. This essay had a profound influence on our founding fathers and the framing of our Constitution. Apparently George Washington found it of such importance that he failed to return it to the library.
A very important provision in that essay is the interpretation of a natural born citizen:
THE LAW OF NATIONS
212. Citizens and Nations
The citizens are the members of the civil society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, and served to all of their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IT OWES TO ITS OWN PRESERVATION; and it is presumed as matter, that each citizen, on entering into society; reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHER IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; and these become true citizens merely by tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming of the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe society in which they were born. I SAY IN THAT ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH, AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.
Are we or are we not a constitutional republic? It is time that we stand up and demand that our elected representatives address whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications that our founding fathers outlined in Article II Section I.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Barack Obama Is Not A Natural Born Citizen
The birthers are raising hell and havoc in the state of Hawaii. Their constant request for Obama’s birth certificate has exasperated state bureaucrats and they are pleading for a law that would give them the ability to ignore them.
I maintain that it shouldn't be about the location of his birth; instead, it should be about his father, who was a foreign national. I am going to demonstrate that our founding founders were wary of this, and put provisions in our Constitution to avoid this very scenario; as we have seen with good reason.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
"No person but a natural born citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the office of president...."
Now why did the framers state: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of president...."? BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. In order to be natural born you have to have parents (a father) who is a citizen of the country; since the United States did not exist prior to the revolution, none of the founders would have qualified; they had to be grandfathered in. Upon writing the "natural born clause", our founders were heavily influenced by Vattel's Law of Nations, which was published in 1758.
THE LAW OF NATIONS
212. Citizens and Nations
The citizens are the members of the civil society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, and served to all of their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IT OWES TO ITS OWN PRESERVATION; and it is presumed as matter, that each citizen, on entering into society; reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHER IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; and these become true citizens merely by tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming of the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe society in which they were born. I SAY IN THAT ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH, AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.
The framers acknowledged the Law of Nations in our Constitution, Article 1 section 8 clause 10: To define and punish piracy's and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations.
When John McCain announced his candidacy for the republican nomination, his opponents questioned his status as a natural born citizen. Vattel’s Law of Nations answers this very question:
§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
So according to Vattel, John McCain is a natural born citizen.
I have heard arguments that the 14th amendment, and a subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark gives natural born status to children born of foreign nationals. It does not. Two subsequent Supreme Court cases prior to Wong Kim Ark defined the 14th Amendment, and set precedence: The Slaughter-House cases, and Elk v Wilkins. Wong Kim Ark should not be considered settled law, since the justices ignored the aforementioned cases, and disallowed the congressional record on the 14th amendment.
It is because of the misguided ruling of Wong Kim Ark that we have this immigration mess to begin with. It is a perfect example of judicial activism that has gone awry. I might also add that the Constitution confers the rules of naturalization to the legislative branch, and not the judiciary.
Barack Obama has demonstrated the wisdom of Vattel and our founding fathers. He has alienated our historical allies and embraced enemies of Western Civilization. He is his father’s son!
Obama wants to fundamentally change the United States. He is doing it alright, and we are on the road to serfdom.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0317/Hawaii-tired-of-conspiracists-may-pass-law-to-ignore-Obama-birthers
I maintain that it shouldn't be about the location of his birth; instead, it should be about his father, who was a foreign national. I am going to demonstrate that our founding founders were wary of this, and put provisions in our Constitution to avoid this very scenario; as we have seen with good reason.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
"No person but a natural born citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the office of president...."
Now why did the framers state: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of president...."? BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. In order to be natural born you have to have parents (a father) who is a citizen of the country; since the United States did not exist prior to the revolution, none of the founders would have qualified; they had to be grandfathered in. Upon writing the "natural born clause", our founders were heavily influenced by Vattel's Law of Nations, which was published in 1758.
THE LAW OF NATIONS
212. Citizens and Nations
The citizens are the members of the civil society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, and served to all of their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IT OWES TO ITS OWN PRESERVATION; and it is presumed as matter, that each citizen, on entering into society; reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHER IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; and these become true citizens merely by tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming of the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe society in which they were born. I SAY IN THAT ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH, AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.
The framers acknowledged the Law of Nations in our Constitution, Article 1 section 8 clause 10: To define and punish piracy's and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations.
When John McCain announced his candidacy for the republican nomination, his opponents questioned his status as a natural born citizen. Vattel’s Law of Nations answers this very question:
§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
So according to Vattel, John McCain is a natural born citizen.
I have heard arguments that the 14th amendment, and a subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark gives natural born status to children born of foreign nationals. It does not. Two subsequent Supreme Court cases prior to Wong Kim Ark defined the 14th Amendment, and set precedence: The Slaughter-House cases, and Elk v Wilkins. Wong Kim Ark should not be considered settled law, since the justices ignored the aforementioned cases, and disallowed the congressional record on the 14th amendment.
It is because of the misguided ruling of Wong Kim Ark that we have this immigration mess to begin with. It is a perfect example of judicial activism that has gone awry. I might also add that the Constitution confers the rules of naturalization to the legislative branch, and not the judiciary.
Barack Obama has demonstrated the wisdom of Vattel and our founding fathers. He has alienated our historical allies and embraced enemies of Western Civilization. He is his father’s son!
Obama wants to fundamentally change the United States. He is doing it alright, and we are on the road to serfdom.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0317/Hawaii-tired-of-conspiracists-may-pass-law-to-ignore-Obama-birthers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)