http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-law-of-nations-and-the-law-of-the-united-states/
OBAMA used the Landais case of the Hawaiian Kingdom in his quest for "natural citizen" based on Vattel's Law of Nations.
Immunities are had by the Landais case for our families, the House of Nobles who did file a lien on our families properties, and lands that we are assigned to protect according to Kamehameha.
This is the case:
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
The U.S. Premeditated the takeover of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation.
The U.S. received deeds from entities who were not the owners of Hawaiian lands, specifically Pearl Harbor.
Click on the following links for the articles:
"Natural born" OBAMA was brought up in this post from Pilipo......fyi:
The lead investigator for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse – which already has found probable cause that Barack Obama’s publicly released birth certificate is a forgery – says any Hawaii documentation for Obama’s birth that exists would probably be of little value.
Mike Zullo, a retired New Jersey detective now heading Arpaio’s volunteer investigative team, explained in an interview that at the time of Obama’s birth during the state’s early years, Hawaii birth documentation routinely was purchased by foreigners for children not born in the state.
Arpaio’s investigation was launched last September after constituents came to the sheriff with their concern that Obama was ineligible for the presidency and would perpetrate a fraud by placing his name on the state’s ballot.
Zullo’s comments came in an interview with Tea Party Power Hour host Mark Gillar.
Gillar described the process in the 1960s: Foreign nationals, primarily from Japan, would fly to Hawaii and buy a birth registration for their son or daughter, not with the goal of one day having them become president, but to obtain the benefits of being a U.S. citizen.
Zullo said that when he was in Hawaii last month following up on leads, he talked to older locals who “informed us about a syndicate operation, a Mafia operation if you will, being run in the early infancy of the state of Hawaii where birth certificates were being sold to Japanese refugees on a black market basis.”
Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Ti...
At that time, Japan was still undergoing post-war reconstruction while America was an established superpower.
Zullo said there was a business in Hawaii in “birth certificates … for profit.”
Obama released an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate last year as “proof positive” of his birth in the U.S. and “natural born” citizenship, a constitutional requirement for the presidency.
There have been numerous challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Some say that regardless of where he was born, he isn’t qualified because the Founding Fathers understood a natural-born citizen to be the offspring of two U.S. citizens. Obama’s father was a foreign national who only attended school in the U.S.
Zullo also debunked again the contention that 1961 newspaper birth announcements prove anything. He argued the listings were generated automatically by the state and delivered for publication based on the registration of any child with the state.
“Anybody that is hanging their hat on a newspaper entry to prove … Barack Obama [was] born in the state of Hawaii doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” he said.
The births of Japanese children whose parents purchased Hawaii birth certificates also would be listed in the papers, he explained.
During that time period, Japanese parents would fly to Hawaii so their children, born in Japan, could have the benefits of American citizenship, he said.
For that reason, he said, Obama can’t claim that a Hawaii birth certificate is proof he was born in the state.
The interview:
The interview also addressed unanswered questions about the “discovery” of the Obama birth documentation. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, when elected, promised to track down the documentation to put to rest the arguments over Obama’s birth location and eligibility.
The governor eventually concluded, in January 2011, that there was something “written” in state records, but he was unable to produce any documents to the public.
Then, when Obama requested a certified copy of the original documentation three months later, state officials reportedly produced the documentation.
Abercrombie is no longer eager to address the issue.
Earlier this week, WND tried to find out what happened to the governor’s self-initiated research into Obama’s birth documentation.
Initially, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Delacruz told WND she was happy to help with questions – until she found out the subject.
When WND asked in an email for an explanation of why Abercrombie’s investigation could not turn up the documentation, she refused to answer.
“What news organization are you with?” she demanded. “We get frequent ‘birther’ questions and this would fall in that category.”
Subsequently, she refused to respond to email questions.
When WND called, a receptionist in the office responded to the same inquiry with “That’s been done” – apparently meaning president had released the birth certification image. But she promised to take a message and have someone call back.
No one did.
WND had questions about the anomalous results: The governor’s stated inability to find the documentation and the state agency’s later simple recovery and alleged duplication of the same record.
It was shortly after his election that Abercrombie vowed to end the questions from those who doubted Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.”
Stated Abercrombie then: “We’ll do what we can as quickly as we can to make it inevitable that only those who wish the president ill, only the ones with a political agenda, will be the ones doing this kind of thing.
“The president is entitled to the respect of his office and he’s entitled to have his mother and father respected,” he said.
He said he was instructing his attorney general and the chief of the state’s health agency to look at what legal avenues could be used to release information.
“This is a transparent state in terms of our communication with one another,” Abercrombie said. “This is the Aloha state. We care for each other, we look out for each other, we’re family.”
He told CNN in that interview that he would pursue the information regardless of the feelings of the White House.
“It’s a matter of principle with me. I knew his mom and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a question honestly could have had their answer already,” he announced.
Obama’s narrative states that he was born Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu.
However, after a flurry of high-profile media interviews in which he blasted “birthers,” Abercrombie suddenly went silent even though polls reveal nearly six on 10 doubt Obama’s own eligibility story.
He told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about Obama’s documentation: “It actually exists in the archives, written down.” The London Daily Mail, however, noted Abercrombie “suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.”
Yet, when Obama wanted the records, the state instantly waived a ban on reproducing long-form birth certificates and copies were produced to be delivered to Judith Corley, a private attorney.
WND continues to report on multiple legal challenges to Obama over his status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states: “No Person except 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.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama actually was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others contend it’s impossible for him to be considered a “natural born citizen” as his father was a foreign national.
Among the various campaigns raising questions about Obama’s past:
Emer de Vattel
One of the more vexing nObama arguments is their redefinition of Natural Born Citizen. The primary way they attempt to do this is to assert that the definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution should be determined by a book by a Swiss philosopher and jurist from the 18th century name Emmerich de Vattel writing in a book loosely called “The Law of Nations”. The approach inflates de Vattel’s influence.
A mindless literalism appears among the nObama when they say that an 18th century Swiss jurist de Vattel’s work, Le Droit des Gens. ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, appliques a la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains, is written intothe US Constitution because the phrase “the Law of Nations” appears therein (and that is a translation of a bit of Vattel’s French title).
Some assert that the word “natural” in “natural born citizen” is a reference to “natural law”. That is, they assert that a natural born citizen is some who is born a citizen by natural law. Let’s run with that.
De Vattel describes exactly two kinds of citizen in his book, natural born citizens (or natives) who are citizens by natural law (this is described in Book 1, Chapter 212), and naturalized citizens who are citizens made so by statute (described in Book 1, Chapter 214).
The essential problem in any discussion is determining what “natural law” is. For de Vattel, natural law makes one a citizen based on who one’s parents are. For him, loyalty and national allegiance are inherited. The problem with arguments based on natural law is that there is no source to which an appeal can be made to determine what natural law is. One cannot question nature directly. Natural law is at one time a consensus view of what is “right” and at another an excuse for inflating one’s own prejudices and biases to superhuman levels.
If natural law is a window on prejudice, then we might consider the conditions of the United States as compared to Switzerland.
Particularly in the southeastern colonies of British North America, disease was so severe that only immigration kept the population from declining. Naturalization standards were lenient (one year’s residence with good conduct). Americans who had just asserted that they were no longer British citizens seemed ready to deny their blood and swear allegiance to the place. It makes no sense for a nation of immigrants to consider “natural allegiance” to be determined by where their father’s came from.
For more information on citizenship issues, look at our Citizenship category.
this is Pilipo's Post:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/investigator-foreigners-bought-hawaii-bi...
*********************************
Note to Pilipo, et. als.:
Hawaiian Genealogies have been stolen over time, and the alii genealogies were hidden over time because of genocide, beaten, killed, thrown on Kalaupapa etc.
At this time, especially with occupiers running amok doing as they please by adding toxins, poisons, depleted uranium, they have gone "haywire", destroyed and in the process of further destroying all that is pono.............
Now is the time for all the pono genealogies to come out to help ..........which has been our families projects since 1995 at a request by my Dad, pursued by his youngest brother, and our families.
There are many coming out now claiming as if they are part of the Royal Families..........and they will have to go through a "gauntlet" because there were many who did pay to add their names as if they were "for real".
Research uncovers much, including finding out about the PIRATES OF THE PACIFIC: Charles Reed Bishop and Friends..........all the Alii Trusts, and who's claiming those today......including revealing the Truth About Who Actually Owns Pearl Harbor, Halawa Ahupuaa etc.
We Kanaka Maoli are surrounded by a society of criminals making up the "Corruption Mecca" of the United States/United States of America.
Not everyone is a criminal, many are just unknowing, undereducated Slaves paying generously to a System, a tax system that they legally do not have to pay to for several reasons.
There are two nations in the Hawaiian Archipelago/archipelago - the Pono and the Premeditated one perpetuating the crimes of the past................which is being exposed for what it is today.......
.....we could surely use Kanaka Maoli help.....even in helping to plan/oversee/build Hawaiian Community Centers etc..........
aloha.
Points of above case:
Two separate nations - the U.S. and the Hawaiian Kingdom both having immunities......add the above to the fact that Royal Person(s) are not subject to the Laws, this is an additional reason why the amounts of fines charged by the State of Hawaii which evolved from the Territory, evolved from the Republic, evolved from the Provisional Government, evolved from the conspirators, treasonous persons from the temporary part of the three (3) part Hawaiian Government called the House of Representatives who premeditated, conspired against the 2/3 Permanent Part of the Hawaiian Government called the Sovereign and the House of Nobles, their bloodlines, their koko, their descendants/heirs is additional proof as to why the entity State of Hawaii, supported by a nation that has PERPETUAL Treaty(ies) with the Hawaiian Government cannot apply laws alien to our own recognized neutral, friendly, non-violent nation , etc.
aloha.
p.s. it is interesting that there are many other postings on google which has to do with the Landais case:
Emer de Vattel
One of the more vexing nObama arguments is their redefinition of Natural Born Citizen. The primary way they attempt to do this is to assert that the definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution should be determined by a book by a Swiss philosopher and jurist from the 18th century name Emmerich de Vattel writing in a book loosely called “The Law of Nations”. The approach inflates de Vattel’s influence.
A mindless literalism appears among the nObama when they say that an 18th century Swiss jurist de Vattel’s work, Le Droit des Gens. ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, appliques a la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains, is written into the US Constitution because the phrase “the Law of Nations” appears therein (and that is a translation of a bit of Vattel’s French title).
Some assert that the word “natural” in “natural born citizen” is a reference to “natural law”. That is, they assert that a natural born citizen is some who is born a citizen by natural law. Let’s run with that.
De Vattel describes exactly two kinds of citizen in his book, natural born citizens (or natives) who are citizens by natural law (this is described in Book 1, Chapter 212), and naturalized citizens who are citizens made so by statute (described in Book 1, Chapter 214).
The essential problem in any discussion is determining what “natural law” is. For de Vattel, natural law makes one a citizen based on who one’s parents are. For him, loyalty and national allegiance are inherited. The problem with arguments based on natural law is that there is no source to which an appeal can be made to determine what natural law is. One cannot question nature directly. Natural law is at one time a consensus view of what is “right” and at another an excuse for inflating one’s own prejudices and biases to superhuman levels.
If natural law is a window on prejudice, then we might consider the conditions of the United States as compared to Switzerland.
Particularly in the southeastern colonies of British North America, disease was so severe that only immigration kept the population from declining. Naturalization standards were lenient (one year’s residence with good conduct). Americans who had just asserted that they were no longer British citizens seemed ready to deny their blood and swear allegiance to the place. It makes no sense for a nation of immigrants to consider “natural allegiance” to be determined by where their father’s came from.
For more information on citizenship issues, look at our Citizenship category.
How often does the phrase “Common Law” appear.
I ask because some of the anti-Obama Natural Born theorists say that the US Constitution was an attempt to get away from British common law.
Emmerich de Vattel was certainly a respected jurist, but he had nothing to do with U.S. law or the constitution. There have been plenty of books with the title of “Law of Nations”. Vattel was influenced by Christian Wolff’s book which is usually, in English translation, titled “Law of Nations”. The de Vattel quote commonly lifted out of context by birfers has the heading, “regarding the laws of our nation”. For some reason they always omit this heading. De Vattel in that section explains ius sanguinis, “law of ancestry”, which is the law of “our nation”, i.e. Switzerland. You are a citizen-at-birth of Switzerland if, and only if, your parents are Swiss, and it makes no difference where you are born. De Vattel in other sections explains ius solis, “law of the soil”, which is the law in other countries. Note also that naturalized Swiss citizens are eligible for all their federal offices.
Doc and company,
You’ll be disappointed to learn that Mr Greschak, after a detailed explication of the “NBC” sources, bordering on parody, concludes a “natural born citizen” must be at a minimum (1) a citizen at the time, (2) a citizen at birth, (3) born on US soil, AND (4) born to parents themselves both citizens at the time of their child’s birth.
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
Hitandrun
No disappointment:
Greschak says “It should be noted that I do not consider this to be a definition of the phrase natural born Citizen. What I have listed here are just what I believe are some necessary conditions for one to be a natural born Citizen”
None of his coments include the US Constitution, do they? It’s what he believes, I believe something else!
That idea — that there was some attempt to “get away” from British Common Law — just demonstrates total ignorance of law and US history. Any American law student knows otherwise, because we learn from the outset that American jurisprudence is laid on top of British common law, and so much of the early American case law goes back to British common law as a determinant of various questions. It’s common to see British holding cited as authorities in 19th century US Supreme Court holdings. I never heard of Vattel in law school — but I sure as hell knew Blackstone!
Google tells me that John Greshak might have very useful opinions to share in the fields of music and mathematics — he seems quite gifted in those arenas.
But a quick scan of his essay tells me that, unfortunately, the man does not know the first thing about Constitutional law or American jurisprudence.
I disagree – the essay betrays naivite rather than sophistication in terms of legal analysis. It has a false aura of sophistication because of the type of argument advanced — but you could probably find examples of equally complex reasoning and citation to authorities in writings in support of creationism, yet none would be given a second look by a modern scientist.
Doc,
The parody, I’m sure, is unintended on Mr Greschak’s part, who has done yeoman’s work in assembling the “NBC” sources. Nonetheless, sophisticated readers like Expelliarmus might find Mr Greschak’s convoluted interpretations and conclusions bordering on parody. To my mind’s eye they do.
Hitandrun
richCares,
You are misinterpreting Mr Greschak’s main point, which is that the requirements for “natural born citizen” status in the Constitution or elsewhere during the period of the Framers must include AT A MINIMUM all those he lists, and perhaps more.
Incdentally, as Doc has already learned, Amb. Keyes in his personal essays does not lend credence to such Donofrio arguments. Dr Keyes, time and again, emphasizes that a foreign birth remains the major possibility which might vitiate Mr Obama’s eligibility — hence his demand for public disclosure of the vault document.
Hitandrun
Strangely enough, we do agree on that point.
I don’t agree that his convoluted interpretations lead to the conclusions he has drawn, either. He made a rather odd logical leap, based entirely on an unsupported assumption which seems to defy history, when he got to the point of deciding which sort of citizen would be “most numerous”.
Here’s a link to Congressional hearings that go into the history of the “National Born Citizen” requirements in some depth:
http://tinyurl.com/dlk55s
The information there paints a very different picture than the claims of Greschak’s essay or Donofrio’s theorizing. There’s a lot to read there, but its interesting stuff.
These hearings took place about 4 years ago, and the Senate Judiciary was considering a possible Constitutional Amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for President, or a statute clarifying that children of citizens who were born abroad (like McCain) should be considered natural born. They all agreed consistently throughout that “natural born” did include all children born in the US, regardless of parentage, and they used the phrase “natural born” interchangeably with “native born”.
Plus they pretty much discredit the theories about fears of foreign influence due to parentage.
(Thank to mimi for providing me the link)
As to “natural born citizen” I would suggest reading US v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 (1898). If you do read it get a very large cup of coffee, it is very long. I came to the conclusion that the court assumed this underlying principal: Within the class “Citizens” there are two and only two subclasses (1) “Natural Born Citizens”, and (2) “Naturalized Citizens”. In short the finding of the Court was that if you are born on US soil you are a natural and/or native born citizen (natural and native are used interchangeablyby the Court). THe nationality of the parents is irrelevant.
If you notice the birthers never mention the Wong case.
The other day I saw a birther blog that cited the Dred Scott case. I cannot believe someone could have been so idiotic.
Doc,
What happened to the Federalist Papers ‘common law’ references and the Apuzzo blog excerpt in your original article?
Have they been moved to another thread?
Hitandrun
Wong Kim Ark case?
Okay. I’ll state a fact about it.
In only ONE place does it use the phrase/term “natural born citizen”.
Justice Grey [sic, Dr. C] :
“Justice Grey [sic, Dr. C], in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
http:// caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
And as Grey [sic, Dr. C] was quoting the earlier case Minor vs Happersett… here is that portion,
Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http:/ / www. law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
” Letters of Delegates to Congress
1774-1789
Edited by Paul H. Smith, et al. (1976-93) ”
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol02.html , in “Volume 02” is Benjamin Franklin’s letter dated December 9, 1775 to Charles William Frederic Dumas.
“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, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.”
Read Robert Trout’s piece.
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/index.html
Read John Greschack’s piece.
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
———
And also… Thomas Jefferson said that, a person is either British or an alien (not British). “no middle character”
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol21.html , in “Volume 21” as “Letter 151 Jefferson Notes”
Obama was British at birth.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
The terms used in the French were “naturels ou Indigenes”
It shouldn’t take much to see the cognates of these words.
As for follwing jeffeerson, if we do follow him, then we see that to be aa “citizen”, of any kind, shape or form, one cannot be a dual citizen. It didn;t exist. “There is no middle character.”
As a “citizen” of this country, cannot also be British, per Jefferson.. how then could a “natural born citizen” be a dual citizen back then?
And look at Revised Statute of 1868 sec 1992
““All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/expatriation-RS1999-...
Let me put it this way. If Obama was born in 1869, and the law is clear that a “citizen” cannot be “subject to a foreign power”, then Obama could not a “citizen”. He was subject to a foreign power: Great Britain through hi dad. And further, in 1868, could a woman marry a man, and retain her original citizenship, or would she not automatically obtain her husband’s?
Yes, NOW there are anchor babies, in which NO parent need to be an American, the baby will be granted American citizenship per the soil alone.
But in 1868, with th Revised Statute a “citizen” cannot be subject to a foreign power. How then could a “natural born citizen” be allowed to be subject to a foreign power?
as our US citizenship requirements have changed THROUGH laws… the definition of “natural born citizen” has NOT changed through law.
So what was a “citizen” to the framers? what eas a “citizen” per Jefferson? What was a ccitizen even into 1868? And whatever a “citizen was by those requirements.. what then was, and has never been changed by law, a “natural born citizen”?
This is why once reaching the age of majority the child renounces the other citizenships and retains its natural born status.
It’s really that simple. A child cannot be ‘punished’ for his parents’ citizenship status.
Which is why a natural born citizen is any child born on US soil except for children to foreign dignitaries and invading military.
Hope that clarifies. Subject to a foreign power means that the person is not subject to US law which only applies to the two categories mentioned above.
“…and it is abundantly clear from colonial legislation and English common law that citizenship under the Constitution (i.e., natural born citizenship) was determined solely by place of birth and without regard for the status of the parents.”
Show me the quotations through the years of the definition of “natural born citizen”, which says nothing of the status of the parents.
And as for 1868, my POINT is this: as a citizen could not be subject to a foreign power.. how nthen could a “natural born citizen”"?
Because Obama WAS subject to a foreign power, so in 1868, he would not have been a citizen, and thus he could not then have been a natural born citizen.
Show me the quotations through the years of the definition of “natural born citizen”, which says nothing of the status of the parents.
See this link for more detail
And as for 1868, my POINT is this: as a citizen could not be subject to a foreign power.. how nthen could a “natural born citizen””?
Subject to means under jurisdiction of, or in plainer words, held to the laws of the country. Obama, living in the US was subject to the US, not the UK.
Because Obama WAS subject to a foreign power, so in 1868, he would not have been a citizen, and thus he could not then have been a natural born citizen.
A misunderstanding of the term ‘subject to a foreign power’. This only refers to children of foreign dignitaries and invading military who are subject to their native country, not the country in which they reside. You must have heard of the term diplomatic immunity?
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” 1866 Act, �§ 1, 14 Stat. at 27. During the debates on the Act, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee stated that the provision defining citizenship is “merely declaratory of what the law now is,” and he cited, among other authorities, a quotation from William Rawle, whose constitutional law treatise was one of the most widely respected antebellum works: “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” (10)
Cheers
Doc Conspiracy said, “Ken Dunbar: “The terms used in the French were naturels ou Indigenes’. It shouldn’t take much to see the cognates of these words.”
Which of those is the cognate for “citizen”? The answer is: none of them.”
let me point it out to you. The words “natureles or indigenes” are translated as “natives or natural born citizens.
But if you do a simple translation from French to english, you will find that “naturels”-> natural (adj)
and “indigneses”-> indigenous(adj), native
So whoever these “naturals or “indigenous natives” are.. their parents were citizens at their birth in the country.
Who would English (British) translatee from the French into Englis “natives, or natural born citizens”.. if they disagreed with Vatell? why wpuld American publishers also translate those French words into “natives, or natural born citizens”, if those Americans disagreed with Vatell’s naturles ou indigenes being translated into natives or natural born citizens?
And when we -you, Doc and I, Ken- mention Yinger’s article…. what do you make of the following from it?
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
” This history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term “natural born” as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.(41)
A particularly compelling version of this interpretation, with language that applies, inadvertently, no doubt, to foreign-born adoptees, can be found in an article written almost 100 years ago by Alexander Porter Morse.(42) He writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.”(43) In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.(44) Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory…. A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46) “
Doc posted: Senate comments about the 1866 (not 68) Civil Rights act. Senator Cowan said:”
And nowhere did he say that three-word term “natural born citizen”.
The child’s birth status can never change.
The child, when becoming an adult, may renounce any citizenship he/she chooses.
But the birth status can never change: born with dual nationality, for example. Obama will always have been born of a British father and subject to British Law (British nationality Act of 1948) as he himself admits on his campaaign website FightTheSmears.
As for your given definition of “natural born citizen”, I ask you provide quoptations (documents) through the decades of the USA. proving such. And, please accurately have included those sources with that specific three-word term “natural born citizen”.
Doc posted:
and it is abundantly clear from colonial legislation and English common law that citizenship under the Constitution (i.e., natural born citizenship) was determined solely by place of birth and without regard for the status of the parents.
Go argue with Yinger and Alexander Porter Morse.
” This history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term “natural born” as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.(41)
A particularly compelling version of this interpretation, with language that applies, inadvertently, no doubt, to foreign-born adoptees, can be found in an article written almost 100 years ago by Alexander Porter Morse.(42) He writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.”(43) In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.(44) Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory…. A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46) ”
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”
Since anyone other than ambassadors and invading military fall under the Jurisdiction of the US when living in the US, it seems self evidence that the citizenship of the parents does not matter, as long as the child is born on US soil and thus under jurisdiction of the United States.
How about Yinger and Morse argue with everyone who says otherwise?
(And for those who enjoy appeals to authority, Yinger is a professor at Syracuse who does not have a law degree, and Morse was a lawyer who, among other things, represented Louisana in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case.)
Ken Dunbar: “Go argue with Yinger and Alexander Porter Morse.”
I never argue with third parties, particularly dead ones. If you can persuade Yinger to come over here, I’d be pleased to discuss the subject with him.
by 
Subscribe to author feed
How often does the phrase “Common Law” appear.
I ask because some of the anti-Obama Natural Born theorists say that the US Constitution was an attempt to get away from British common law.
Emmerich de Vattel was certainly a respected jurist, but he had nothing to do with U.S. law or the constitution. There have been plenty of books with the title of “Law of Nations”. Vattel was influenced by Christian Wolff’s book which is usually, in English translation, titled “Law of Nations”. The de Vattel quote commonly lifted out of context by birfers has the heading, “regarding the laws of our nation”. For some reason they always omit this heading. De Vattel in that section explains ius sanguinis, “law of ancestry”, which is the law of “our nation”, i.e. Switzerland. You are a citizen-at-birth of Switzerland if, and only if, your parents are Swiss, and it makes no difference where you are born. De Vattel in other sections explains ius solis, “law of the soil”, which is the law in other countries. Note also that naturalized Swiss citizens are eligible for all their federal offices.
Doc and company,
You’ll be disappointed to learn that Mr Greschak, after a detailed explication of the “NBC” sources, bordering on parody, concludes a “natural born citizen” must be at a minimum (1) a citizen at the time, (2) a citizen at birth, (3) born on US soil, AND (4) born to parents themselves both citizens at the time of their child’s birth.
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
Hitandrun