The time may ere long arrive when the minds of men will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Constitution, but the many cannot now be brought to make a stand for its preservation. We must wait a while.
N.Y. Historical Society’s Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III, 1873
I have the Honor to be with great respect Sir, Your Most Humble and Obedient Servant. – George Washington
OVERVIEW
There were three types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution:
1. Those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of Independence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of a sovereign America.
2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.
3. A person naturalized into citizenship through an act of law requiring an oath and and renunciation to any former allegiance.
We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it.
The scope of this writing is to focus on the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to the clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
This study explores the historical, legislative and judicial areas for factual evidence that defines the intent behind the clause. While it by no means gives the bulk of the research justice, for that would require a book, it should provide a sufficient template that destroys the theory that the definition was allegedly an ambiguous or an otherwise unanswerable question. Breaking it down into the three aforementioned parts, we are able to see a contiguous pattern that is easily digestable using the credibility of those who were living and present during those eras. It is crucial to set the stage during the American Revolution, for we find that it was the experience drawn from this event that provides the foundation from which everything else is drawn that embodies the spirit of the Constitution itself.
In GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), the court advocated, as well as over 100 other courts who similarly advised, to look to this period for direction when applicable:
“… and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter [The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [The Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”
So we start at this point in history and provide a historical review of the events that shed light on the intellect that manifests itself later into the Constitution and subsequent legislation and jurisprudence.
We pick up events after the French and Indian War1 where King George III attempted to tax the colonists in an effort to recoup his losses incurred by the war. This event also gave the king the excuse he needed to gain control over the now flourishing and prosperous States. America was no longer a band of menial pioneers who struggled through long winters and devastating plagues with little to no help from the distant Crown. It was now a fully functional, vast community of largely, self-sufficient States, rich in resources with the potential of becoming more powerful and independent by the day. The king seized the post-war opportunity to call for reining in that power and wealth for the benefit of the mother country. The colonists objected, having no representation in Parliament; a violation of the often ignored, yet existing, constitution2 between them. By 1775, the conflict from a series of levies by Parliament and resistance by the colonists had come to a head. Shocking intelligence revealed that the king was actually intending to utilize the Hessians (Germans) as mercenaries in conjunction with his own army to crush the Americans by force. The plan threatened imminent doom for America as they knew it. Despite the colonists hopes, the long-awaited resolution was not to come and an Act was passed by Parliament throwing them out of the king’s protection. Dr. David Ramsay3, notable historian, physician, one in service to the Continental Congress and president in the Senate, wrote:
Though new weight was daily thrown into the scale, in which the advantages of independence were weighed, yet it did not preponderate till about that time in 1776, when intelligence reached the colonists of the act of parliament passed in December 1775, for throwing them out of British protection, and of hiring foreign troops to assist in effecting their conquest. 4
The colonists were now faced with the prospect of seeking aid themselves or facing up to the possibility of being crushed by an onslaught that was stacked in Great Britain’s favor. Where that aid might materialize from was not evident. What was clear was that the colonial States together with England, had just gotten over participating against the French in a seven-year long conflict that spanned throughout Europe. While tensions with France weren’t as nearly as bad as that of England, it certainly wasn’t optimal or trusting. In addition, there were many other obstacles to overcome. Word of the king’s plan needed to be conveyed to the people. They needed to arrive at a decision for independence and then declare it. This was so that, in the eyes of the law of nations, their sovereignty would demand recognition. Otherwise, they would be viewed as a people engaged in a civil war that other nations would be loathe to get involved in. Dr. Ramsay further explains,
While the public mind was balancing on this eventful subject, several writers placed the advantages of independence in various points of view. Among these Thomas Paine in a pamphlet, under the signature of Common Sense, held the most distinguished rank. 5
An important impact from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was the suggestion that no government could be instituted with the blessing from Heaven, that revealed,
… convincing proof, that Great-Britain had thrown them out of her protection, had engaged foreign mercenaries to make war upon them, and seriously designed to compel their unconditional submission to her unlimited power. It found the colonists most thoroughly alarmed for their liberties, and disposed to do and suffer any thing that promised their establishment. 6
With the realization of Great Britain’s plan against the people and pondering the oppressive ramifications of subjugating themselves to it, the colonists declared their independence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for the sake of liberty and freedom and rejected “lusting after kings” to rule and provide over them; embracing republican ideas instead. These millions of former British subjects became the first citizens of a sovereign America and are included in the Constitution as being a party to it at the time of its execution. This was the cornerstone ideology of the new nation to come and deserves clarification in the history books; that what was on the line was far more serious than just taxation without representation. It was about a power grab at its core.
However the conviction of the colonists may be measured, it was still no match for the sheer logistical numbers of the British troops and their mercenaries. France was keenly aware that it was in her best interests to support the independence of the United States rather than have England continue to dominate. Dr. Ramsay records the pivotal events:
The news of the capitulation of Saratoga reached France, very early in December, 1777. The American deputies took that opportunity to press for an acceptance of the treaty, which had been under consideration for the preceding twelve months. The capture of Burgoyne’s army convinced the French, that the opposition of the Americans to Great Britain was not the work of a few men who had got power in their hands, but of the great body of the people, and was like to be finally successful.7
It was therefore determined to take them by the hand, and publicly to espouse their cause. The commissioners of Congress were informed by Mr. Gerard one of the secretaries of the King’s council of State, that it was decided to acknowledge the independence of the United States and to make a treaty with them. That in the treaty no advantage would be taken of their situation to obtain terms which, otherwise, it would not be convenient for them to agree to. …
That his most Christian Majesty was fixed in his determination not only to acknowledge, but to support, their independence. That in doing this he might probably soon be engaged in a war, yet he should not expect any compensation from the United States on that account, nor was it pretended that he acted wholly for their sakes, since besides his real good will to them, it was manifestly the interest of France, that the power of England should be diminished, by the separation of the colonies from its government.
Marquis de la Fayette8, a French soldier who was enamored with the American cause and despite the order for his arrest on account of it, had already joined the Revolution in June of 1777 of his own accord. He was among the first to receive news of a treaty and alliance between France and America signed on February 6, 1778. However, the caliber of dedication in comparison to de la Fayette’s character was striking. These French counterparts to the cause varied from obliged volunteers, to demanding stipulations for pay, then advanced pay and ultimately rank within Washington’s army. When the latter was assumed, a morale disturbance and upset was felt among the American troops. The situation was summed up best by George Washington’s numerous letters addressing the subject directly:
“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.
Here we see the first seeds of nativity, connections to the country and residency as being the fundamental criteria of fidelity. Then later, adding to the list, Washington’s preference for natives who own property. In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in 1777, in a publication entitled “Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following passage occurs: —
“You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any individual distinction between them and foreigners.”
The same is promulgated in Washington’s subsequent General Orders, where we see Washington raise the bar again to include verification. In Commander Washington’s General Orders of July 7, 1775 given at Head Quarters, Cambridge by Horatio Gates, Adj. General to Parole-Dorchester, Countersign-Exeter:
“The General has great Reason; and is highly displeased, with the Negligence and Inattention of those Officers, who have placed as Centries at the out-posts, Men with whose Character they are not acquainted. He therefore orders, that for the future, no Man shall be appointed to those important Stations, who is not a Native of this Country, or has a Wife, or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached. This Order is to be consider’d as a standing one and the Officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril.” – 11 Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day. 9
Sound reasoning existed behind what may seem a harsh edict at first glance to those without any military experience. However, the explanation is contained in Washington’s many pleas to Congress expressing what was being experienced on the battlefield as justification for his actions. There was a morale problem and there was an abuse problem affecting the operations of Washington’s military. The problem was so severe, the tone was reflected in literally hundreds of letters, speeches and essays, all the way through to his infamous Farewell Address.10 Some of his direct misgivings are noted in the following examples.
Regarding the morale problem noted on May 7th, 1777 at Morristown:
“Dear Sir: I take the liberty to ask you what Congress expects I am to do with the many foreigners that have at different times been promoted to the rank of field-officers, and by their last resolve two of that of colonels? These men have no attachment for the country further than interest binds them. Our officers think it exceedingly hard, after they have toiled in the service and have sustained many losses, to have strangers put over them, whose merit perhaps is not equal to their own, but who effrontery will take no denial. It is by the zeal and activity of our own people that the cause must be supported, and not by the few hungry adventurers. I am, &c., GEO. WASHINGTON.”
Regarding the frustration, future reflections and regret; a letter to Gouverneur Morris, Esq., White Plains, July 24th, 1778:
“Dear Sir: The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a subject of very great importance to the well-being of these states, much more so than will appear at first sight – I mean the appointment of so many foreigners to offices of high rank and trust in our service.
The lavish manner in which rank has hitherto be bestowed on these gentlemen, will certainly be productive of one or the other of these two evils, either to make us despicable in the eyes of Europe, or become a means of pouring them in upon us like a torrent, and adding to our present burden. But it is neither the expense nor the trouble of them I most dread; there is an evil more extensive in its nature and fatal in its consequence to be apprehended, and that is, the driving of all our officers out of the service, and throwing not only our own army, but our military councils, entirely into the hands of foreigners. …
The expediency and policy of the measure remains to be considered, and whether it is consistent with justice or prudence to promote these military fortune-hunters at the hazard of our army. Baron Steuben, I now find, is also wanting to quit his inspectorship for a command in the line. This will be productive of much discontent. In a word, although I think the Baron an excellent officer, I do most devoutly wish – that we had not a single foreigner amongst us, except the Marquis de Lafayette, who acts upon very different principles from those which govern the rest.
Adieu. I am, most sincerely yours, GEORGE WASHINGTON.”
Regarding the abusive greed fostered by a lack of personal resolve. A letter of George Washington to Gouverneur Morris. White Plains, 24th July, 1778
“… The officers, my dear sir, on whom you most depend for the defence of this cause, distinguished by length of service, their connections, property, and, in behalf of many, I may add, military merit, will not submit, much if any longer, to the unnatural promotion of men over them, who have nothing more than a little plausibility, unbounded pride and amibition, and a perseverance in application not to be resisted but by uncommon firmness, to support their pretensions; men, who, in the first instance, tell you they wish for nothing more than the honor of serving in so glorious a cause as volunteers, the next day solicit rank without pay, the day following want money advanced to them, and in the course of a week want further promotion, and are not satisfied with any thing you can do for them.” 11
With the success and security of the country in mind, it became incumbent and necessary to review this portion of history that lays down the initial rules and conditions required from the direction of the first Commanding Officer. It encapsulates how fidelity was identified, measured and enforced in order to secure the objectives of liberty and freedom. The evidence begins with the Revolution as it illustrates the evolved requirements in leadership that take shape as a matter of course and experience. It illuminates the criteria set in choosing those worthy and trusting of rank; that being: A native-born American, who has verifiable connections and family who reside and hold property within the country.
This sets the stage for the legislative review of the second section which further developes this criteria in the same vein as George Washington, the “father genius” of the Revolution and framer of the Constitution of the United States of America.
“His last scene comported with the whole tenor of his life. Although in extreme pain, not a sigh, not a groan escaped him; and with undisturbed serenity he closed his well-spent’life. Such was the man America has lost — such was the man for whom our nation mourns.
‘Cease, sons of America, lamenting our separation. Go on and confirm, by your wisdom, the fruits of our joint councils, joint efforts, and common dangers; reverence religion; diffuse knowledge throughout your lands; patronize the arts and sciences; let liberty and order be inseparable companions. Control party spirit, the bane of free government; observe good faith to, and cultivate peace with, all nations; shut up every avenue to foreign influence; contract rather than extend national connections; rely on yourselves only; be Americans in thought, word and deed. Thus will you give immortality to that union which was the constant object of my terrestrial labors; thus will you preserve undisturbed, to the latest posterity, the felicity of a people to me most dear; and thus will you supply (if my happiness is now ought to you) the only vacancy in the round of pure bliss high Heaven bestows’.
Methinks I see his august image, and hear falling from his venerable lips these deep-sinking words“; —
Recollections of George Washington by Henry Lee in Washington’s funeral oration before the House of Congress on December 26, 1799.
… to be continued
-Undead Revolution
————————————–
1. The French and Indian War (Summary) – http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/frenchindian/summary.html
2. The Magna Carta – http://www.magnacharta.com/articles/article04.htm
3. Dr. David Ramsay – Princeton Short-Biography
http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/ramsay_david.html
4. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the American
Revolution, vol. 1 [1789] pg. 237 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/814
5. Thomas Paine, Common Sense, February 14, 1776, Philadelphia: W. & T. BRADFORD, 1776; and New York: Bartleby.com, 1999 – http://www.bartleby.com/133/index.html
6. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the American Revolution, vol. 1 [1789] pg. 237 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/814
7. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the American Revolution, vol. 2 [1789] pgs. 44-45
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/547
8. Marquis De Lafayette – http://www.marquisdelafayette.net
9. Image – Commander Washington’s General Orders dated July 7, 1775: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw3&fileName=mgw3g/gwpage001.db&recNum=10
10. Washington’s Farewell Address – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
11. The Rover, Vol. 3, Edited by Seba Smith, New York, S.B. Dean & Co. 1844, pg. 364
- Blog Image – The Prayer at Valley Forge by Arnold Friberg
Undead Revolution 
I must commend you for this excellent piece of research and writing. Thank you; and, my two cents…
You write: “The colonists objected, having no representation in Parliament; a violation of the often ignored, yet existing, constitution (i.e Magna Carta) between them.”
Possibly more important than the Magna Carta, perhaps because of its historical proximity rendering it fresher in the Founders’ minds was the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. Author Michael Barone calls this sea change in English polity our first revolution. In his 2007 book “Our First Revolution – The Remarkable Upheaval that Inspired America’s Founding Fathers” (Crown Publisher-2007), Barone writes:
“The First Revolution…was a reference point…a glowing example, for the American Founders..(who)began their rebellion, not by rejecting the achievements of the Glorious Revolution but by arguing that Parliament and King George III were denying them their rights as Englishmen that were gained in that revolution and the revolutionary settlement – the laws passed in 1689 and the 1690’s…as the Founding Fathers created their own revolution and formed their republic, they did not fully accept the Revolutionary settlement – the set of laws and customs established during and immediately following the Glorious Revolution.The new nation would have no monarchy or titled nobility, no religious tests for public office,and no national established church. But the Founders…copied some features of the Revolutionary settlement, from yearly session of Congress to the establishment of a national bank….to the Second amendment right to bear arms.”(pp 1-2)
The only proof you need for the definition of Natural Born Citizen is this video, which is straight from the Framers’ mouths.
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen:
What you have written is absolutely beautiful. And I sure wish that we had more George Washingtons around. I can’t wait for the rest.
You guys did so good on this, which is really a labor of love.
A very well-done bit of historical presentation. TYVM for the efforts and I think the text helps put the pertinent part of the Constitution into the correct context.
Many today attempt to make the claim that A2S1C5 (the “natural born citizen” clause) is “undefined” or “not clear”. As you help show, that is definitely not the case unless you try to justify actions of a man who is not eligible to hold the office he now occupies.
Bravo-
It will be my honor to forward this link to family and friends. Your essay stirs the intellect as well as the imagination and the heart. Well done.
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I have eagerly awaited your posting since Leo Donofrio brought it to our attention, August 25th. I realize this is the first part of more to come, yet I suspect a casual reader will not recognize this via your simple close of ” … to be continued.”
Might you add just the title of forthcoming sections and possibly a prelim-abstract. Otherwise, these casual readers might walk away thinking “This is it?” and it surely is not. As you well know, we have only once chance of making a first impression.
Thank you for considering my suggestion, and I cannot commend you enough for the crucial & exhaustive work you have all immersed yourselves into. Like Leo, you too are Patriots.
Respectfully,
Robare
The letter by George Washington begins with, “We are either a United people, or we are not.” His words here end with, “Shut up every avenue to foreign influence.” But George Washington did not write the following:
“2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.” – Undead Revolution
Please show me where the Framers defined “natural born Citizen” in this article.
Quotes are in red. If you’re seeing Washington’s ending quote with another quote that is listed at the top, then there’s something wrong with your display. You should not be reading the Overview as part of a quote from George Washington.
The people who made the pledge to the Declaration of Independence are not natural-born citizens. They are former British subjects, therefore they could not have been natural-born citizens. They were grandfathered into the clause and stated as much in Article II. Naturalized citizens are also not natural-born citizens. They are foreigners made into citizens post-Declaration of Independence. The heirs of those citizen parents are the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.
The historical segment of this series is to go back to the very first criteria that was set in this country and it begins with the experience in the Revolutionary War by the first commanding officer of the military, George Washington. The executive office wasn’t even born yet, nor were the other branches of government. But the ideas of fidelity and trust for those soliciting rank, most definitely did exist. That’s the purpose of this intro. It’s a basic 101 recap of history that was tested on a High School student for comprehension. And it passed.
If you’re looking for legislative and judicial proceedings for citizenship that define a clause that didn’t exist yet in the revolutionary period, sorry, you won’t find it. What you will find are very first military orders and correspondences on the subject and that was the goal of this segment. – UR
I think Americans can do with a dose of good history for once. You captured the spirit of Washington’s vision for this country impeccably. I look forward to reading the rest. You’ve done excellent research as noted on other blogs.
The link to those forums above is a spam site. You might want to delete it. You’ll get a lot of that on blogs, so beware of that. It also perpetuates a rumor found on another blog that claims George Collins was a bigamist and perjurer when the google book they took it from, which was the only source given, doesn’t even state that was factually him.
Even if true, they missed the entire point of the legal points made. Collins was considered a brilliant legal mind of the times. Moral character counted for much more than it did today. As you can see, Obama and his own father had worse faults, drugs, women, breaking the law, etc., and no one says a word.
Speaking of dense people. Minuteman, if you couldn’t grasp this part, this subject is obviously not for you.
You’re the ones who also wrote the original piece on S.R. 511 for ZAPEM in 2008, correct?
We helped with the research they requested for that piece, yes. -UR
Some history:
ZAPEM wrote the first S.R. 511 blog.
http://zapem.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus/
They posted it originally in Leo’s blog comments while they were still researching it. Donofrio knew what was going on back then for sure. I know because I was a member of their private forums and the link is in there to this day about the comment they made to his blog on November 15, 2008:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/article/29871.html
I recall the University being mentioned back then. I don’t think you had a name yet.
Then the original piece was written up at a site they no longer use. Then it was transferred to wordpress.com.
Donofrio followed up on it at his site asking a further question as to why congress admitted they came to the conclusion they did for McCain, with the understanding that to be a “natural born citizen”, you were born of two citizen parents.
Lots of blogs use the same blogged information, but they don’t say anything new. It’s a regurgitation of everything on those two blogs. By now, the S.R. 511 fiasco is well-known. It’s been blogged all over the internet for a year and never mentioned in the news. It doesn’t seem to get old. The question still out there is: Where’s the congressional record showing the revised clause(s) of that bill? No one has come up with that yet. /hint Tapper /hint Rumor has it, it’s out there but definitely not public information. There’s also a Vitter connection ZAPEM didn’t reveal for want of more proof. But I’m sure it’ll all come out in the end. This congress is definitely corrupt and some people should be going to jail in the end, on both sides of the aisle.
The Vattel connection in the constitution was originally blogged by Paul Madison of The Federalist Blog days after the S.R. 511 stuff became public. That was a sequel to his 14th Amendment piece. It was his work that enlightened everyone. http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
It was Donofrio’s lawsuit that first asked the constitutional question regarding eligibility of all three candidates. Curiously, none of the other lawyers with active cases mention him anymore. MSNBC’s Pete Williams also tried (unsuccessfully) to squash him. It was Donofrio who brought the whole thing to light and got people motivated and he still brings in the most crowds of any of them due to his original investigative reports.
UR …wonderful presentation & concise lesson in some of the history & concerns surrounding our framers.
I’d love a demonstration such as this in our school systems VS the propaganda that was planned for the young minds today. We are in dire need of factual truth encompassing the founding of this nation for people of all age brackets to grasp. This fits the requirement to a *T*
BRAVO …& great groundwork for the framing of your forthcoming research.
Beautiful. Wonderful. May our patriots dream be everlasting.
Lovely to read Washington’s words which laid the foundation for the definition of a Natural Born Citizen.
Many thanks!
Great introduction. Really looking forward to the other parts.
I just read the article tags: Chester “Absalom” Arthur? I know his official middle name is “Alan”, his inofficial one seems to be “Abell”, which was e.g. stated in the 1903 Vermont genealogical and family history here: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/FH18,23743 (and by the infamous Hinman as well).
But “Absalom”? Is that connected to “Abell” in any way?
You guys sure don’t miss a beat, heh. That’s just a friend of mine who made the blog nudging us to go look at a certain record where his name may have been printed like that. A very oldddd record that we might get to someday. – UR
Sounds very intriguing. 🙂
Or is “Absalom” a joke? Like son of king David > subject of the British monarch?
The Founders of The United States of America were only too aware of the perilous nature of their situation. They risked all to establish self-government, devoid of any vestiges of monarchical power. There was very little point in doing this if they couldn’t put in place mechanisms to preserve it. They chose, wisely, the instrument of ‘The Constitution’.
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
“Regarding the frustration, future reflections and regret; a letter to J. Q. Adams, American Minister at Berlin, White Plains, July 24th, 1778”
Uh!? John Quincy Adams would be 11 at the time and there was no American Minister to Prussia in 1778.
Is your date or citation wrong?
Good catch. That one should be to Gov. Morris from Washington on July 24th, 1778. The letter to J. Q. Adams’ is dated January, 20, 1790, also to the same effect. Thanks.
Thank you for your response it’s always reassuring to see an error corrected.
I’d been doing some research of my own and I came across the JQ Adams letter myself after my post but before I saw your reply. However this has left me rather worried about the Gouverneur Morris letter itself. I’ve only seen it on “The Rover” that you cite, two works from 1856 and a later 19th century works.
These latter three seem to be quoting each other (although I’m not sure which 1856 work is earlier).
My unease arises because:
1)The letter is noticably absent from George Washington’s letterbook for the period;
2)The letter is quoted in “The Rover” in a highly partisan ‘Native American Faction’ context;
3)The other works are similarly partisan in their context;and
4)The other works I’ve found include at least one other quotation that has been altered so that it better suits their polemic.
Try the Political Textbook Encyclopedia, Ninth Ed. from 1859 edited by Cluskey. A copy on the web is at http://books.google.com/books?id=1B4TAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Page 294 has both letters, one right after the other. When we printed them out, it was hard to tell because as you can see, they put the person it was addressed to at the bottom instead of the top like we are used to writing and our second page of the printout is where Morris was. I just went back and checked the source and sure enough, you were right. Washington seemed to make a boilerplate and shoot off letters containing the same substance to various people saying some of the same things all in one day, but you probably know that. Nice to meet a history buff. We’ve had to consult quite a few historians already and they’ve been really great people.
I thought perhaps the Cluskey text book was one of your sources. However to put it into context Cluskey was trying to explain the position of the ‘American Party’ (sometimes known as the ‘Know Nothing Party’). In doing so Cluskey seems to be quoting extensively earlier political tracts of dubious accuracy, for instance he includes this:
“While the American Revolution was progressing our Continental Congress forbade any but the native sons to be employed in the foreign service of the country. The committee consisting of Jefferson, Gerry, Read, Sherman and Williams reported :
Resolved: That it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint any person not a natural born citizen thereof to the office of minister charge d affaires consul vice consul or to any other civil department in a foreign country and that a copy of this resolve be transmitted to Messrs Adams,Franklin and Jay ministers of the said States in Europe ”
Now there are two things wrong with this. The first is the 19th century equivilent of a ‘typo’ – it should be Williamson not Williams.
The second is that the original dated March 16 1984 in the Secret Journals of the Continental Congress doesn’t say ‘natural born citizen’ it simply says ‘citizen’.It’s been altered to better suit the partisan position of the polemicist.
So I advise caution with this source – I’ll research it a bit more let you know what I find.
BTW any bias does not come from Cluskey – he was a Democrat,later a confederate officer and member of the second confederate congress.
Hello History Buff.. Malgad here, part of the Washington end of the study. Nice to meet you. Steve points out Cluskey, but that’s only one of the books that contain that letter.
Henry Cabot Lodge had it in his 6 vol. set on Washington, ed. 1889. William Gordon’s history from 1788 (London) also contains the accurate meaning behind these letters where the various objections are made by Washington. Where possible, we tried to draw from the earliest publications in an attempt to stay closest to the period for not only accuracy, but see it through the eyes of the people who were there.
In Volume 4 of Gordon’s set, pg. 18, we found the explanation behind the letters. The American recruits only expected to enlist for 3 years. The war wasn’t expected to last any longer. Rank was the prized honor given to those who continued on. Their pay wasn’t even trickling in. They hardly even received bread to eat and when they did, it was stale. They wore rags for clothes. If they weren’t dying from bullets, the next enemy was sickness and exposure or a tomahawk to the head from Britain’s other mercenaries, the Indians.
The real motivation was the cause – rank was the appreciation they received. The alliance between France and America took over a year in the making and I don’t think Washington was holding his breath for their assistance.
While France was sitting back deciding if it was in their interest to get involved, Washington’s army was kicking butt without their help. That was all due to the spirit Washington was able to infuse into his men. There is no doubt in our minds that it was against all odds.
For the soldiers to see France finally join up, it was a little late. Our soldiers had already proved what they were made of and I think that’s Washington’s point. I don’t doubt for a second he made that point, hundreds of times. I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was to see some well-dressed foreigner stride in and start assuming he was somehow better than they were and deserved the position of telling them what to do. And if you notice in Ramsay’s history, and even in Bancroft’s, France said it didn’t expect compensation from us for engaging in the war. But that’s not what happened.
No. France came in after they saw a win/win situation. They quickly wanted rank without compensation. Once they got that, they wanted compensation with rank and then advanced compensation for any further terms of service. We had a nice bill at the end to pay off – part of the reason why the union needed to be finalized under the Congress of the United States, because under the Articles of Confederation, funds weren’t able to be enforced and they knew they wouldn’t be able to build a cohesive defense against future enemies without it.
The American Party, despite their religious biases, spelled out the definition so many are balking about. No one will cite it because their underlying prejudice was so extreme. They justify their prejudices by pointing to the extreme example set under Pope Alexander I, who decided it was ok to take over lands if they weren’t inhabited by Christians. If you recall, the earliest settlements under that pretense failed and they died trying. The later colonists who actually paid the aborigines for land and goods, succeeded. See Ramsay’s History, volume I. So much for the theory that we stole all this land, eh?
Anyway, I think the point here is that Washington was definitely a “rank based on merit” man, and he put his own before others because his own were doing it for their country and the others were doing it for their best interests. The only exception we find is Lafayette in Washington’s eyes, but Lafayette was here before the treaty and a unique type of person that the others were not. He actually disobeyed France to come here of his own convictions.
Malgad
We also have numerous other citations that confirm the tone of that letter. I don’t think anyone can claim it’s a “dubious” concoction.
To John Adams, Vice President of U. S. – Mount Vernon, January 20th, 1790.
” Sir: * * * You know, my good sir, that it is not the policy of this government to employ foreigners when it can well be avoided, either in the civil or military walks of life. * * * There is a species of self-importance in all foreign officers, that cannot be gratified without doing injustice to meritorious characters among our own countrymen, who conceive, and justly, where there is no great preponderance of experience or merit, that they are entitled to all the offices in the gift of their government. I am, ” G. WASHINGTON.
In the debate in the Federal Convention on the qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, Mr. Elbridge Gerry said that he wished “that in future the eligibility might be confined to natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services.”
An outside account by Gordon’s History is reflected in the story of Charles Morgan, an American spy who used this known excuse to deceive the British successfully:
“I have been, my lord, with the American army from the beginning, and while under Gen. Washington was satisfied; but being put under a Frenchman, I do not like it, and have left the service.”
You’re full of it, “History Buff”. Two more sources, right out of Harvard Law School Library are listed in our notes:
Source Citation: Sparks, Jared. The life of Gouverneur Morris : with selections from his correspondence and miscellaneous papers : detailing events in the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and in the political history of the United States. Vol. 1. Boston, 1832. 3 vols.
Source Library: Harvard Law School Library
Source Citation: Washington, George. The writings of George Washington : being his correspondence, addresses, messages, and other papers, official and private : selected and published from the original manuscripts : with a life of the author, notes, and illustrations. Vol. 6. Boston, 1834-1837. 12 vols.
Source Library: Harvard Law School Library
Both letters completely identical to the other sources listed already. You obviously came here to discredit us out of spite. Instead of telling the TRUTH, you decided to try and smear us. Unfortunately for you, we have multiple confirmed sources for everything we put up. All you did was make yourself look desperate.
Look up Jared Sparks. You might want to crawl into a hole after saying the ignorant bunch of bull you just did. If you have a problem with that guy, take it up with Harvard University. I’m sure they’ll get as much of a laugh out of you as we did.
Poseur, indeed. I’m expecting an apology, but I certainly won’t hold my breath.
Alicia
Undead Revolution
History Buff, you claim in your note to us that,
“these orders were issued by Gates (not Washington)”
You might want to go back and read our citation. It specifically says it was written by Horatio Gates. We never said it was written by George Washington. Furthermore, if you read the order, it refers to George Washington’s edict by so stating,
“He therefore orders,…”
I don’t know what you’re trying to pull here, but either read our stuff correctly, make your objections with citations and proof of your own or stop calling yourself a History Buff. We welcome historians, but not poseurs. A true historian would know where that quote was made and a person of integrity wouldn’t try to accuse us of writing things we didn’t. We’re not into the internet games we see played elsewhere. We’re not stupid and we’re not about to take any side-winding bait. Stick to the issue or get lost.
Malgad
P.S. – I’m not going to post any ridiculous conclusions either that the framers and/or the soldiers in the revolutionary war were anything but patriots fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom. I find it disrespectful and anti-American for one or two of you to send us replies that they were elitist-snobs. It won’t get posted. It’s immature babble that’s attempting to distract from the truth and we see right through it. This is the type of lying influence the framers talked about. If you have no regard for the founders, you can’t possibly have any regard for the law. You only seek to change it. Saw it a mile away.
In the 18th century, they were sneaky about their disdain for a free republic. Today they come right out and tell you to your face that they hate your form of government and intend to change it into a monarchy. In essence, steal something they didn’t earn themselves and use the ignorant masses for pawns. One thing is certain. You guys aren’t ignorant.
I’m glad to see you’re sticking to your guns and not being led into obtuse arguments that are both invalid and have nothing to do with your points.
I guess there’s hope for the next generation yet. Bravo on your work!
First guy, not even from the U.S.
Second dude, fake email. Figures.
He comes to a blog about foreign influence and winds up being from a foreign country trying to tell us what our sources should be and then misquotes the quote. That takes nerve.
There must be a revised standard in AMSTERDAM. hahaha
History Buff is known as TollandRCR on Polijab. You’re correct that he’s not even American. Neither are the rest of them there who are trying to discredit Jared Sparks and any other documentation from the actual papers starting from the Revolution on up.
He claims you don’t have any “recent literature”. As if you were even looking for a recent volume to begin with? I don’t believe you were. You were looking for documentation taken directly from the source of that period. They can’t argue with that so they try to discredit the source. It’s like trying to discredit that Washington was a phenomenal General. They do that too. Everything they say is totally negative and disparaging about our founders.
Polijab members obviously don’t want to hear any history. They want to rewrite it. The fact that they are foreigners should speak to every American. They have no business getting involved with this issue as far as I’m concerned. They should stay in New England and worry about New England because everything they say about our history has pure motive written all over it and all of it lies.
It should be noted that Politijab has an overkill amount of these non-experts complaining about experts. They’ve done absolutely no research of their own. All they know how to do is lie about the facts given out already.
In short, they are like trolling al-qaeda of American History. Just blow it up, with lies. That’s what they do. They want to take over this country with a bunch of crap propaganda that comes out of their asses.
They didn’t like it when we debunked their theory that natural-born citizen didn’t mean the same thing as natural-born subject when we found that spelled out to the letter by David Ramsay and gave that to LD awhile back either. So it doesn’t surprise me that they sit on a forum all day and cry about evidence that discredits them. We already knew that History Buff was a foreigner because we checked him out. But further verification never hurts, thanks.
Steve – UR
I look forward to the Parts II, etc. Here, I see nothing that would suggest that Obama, native-born in Hawaii, possessed of property, would not be able to serve in Washington’s army. (He might be too tall, because in Washington’s letter to Spotswood in the paragraph before the one you cite, he says that none of his guard is to exceed 5’10”.)
Washington’s concern seems clearly focused on those like Lafayette and Steuben, who came from overseas to join our military. “It is impossible for these gentlemen to raise men for themselves.”
You may want to review the debates and see what they had to say about foreign influence and those affected by it. While the other poster brings up the debates, he doesn’t include what was actually said:
In the debate in the Federal Convention on the qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, Mr. Elbridge Gerry said that he wished “that in future the eligibility might be confined to natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services.”
Note that he doesn’t talk about just natives. He talks about anyone having foreign attachments. It’s common sense that they’re looking for people with purely American republican ideas, and that didn’t include anyone who felt otherwise, native or not.
If Barack Obama does not release and provide additional background records, he should be charged, along with the Democrat National Committee, National Nominating Convention, and the Obama Campaign, with deliberate obstruction of the electoral process based on knowledge of the true facts of dual citizenship as a disqualifier for the Office of President.
Thank you, Connecticut and Donofrio. Jaxfax
Greg, that would have depended on whether or not Obama was in the country during the declaration and if he was of age to take the oath. If his father didn’t take it, by the time Obama would have been of age to serve in the military, after having come back to the U.S., he would have had to apply for citizenship because he still would have been a British subject.
You had to be there and make the pledge. See Ramsay’s notes. Ramsay also had a beef with someone who ran for Congress who was born here but didn’t make it back in the timeframe and lost his property. The Senate wound up letting him run by the skin of his teeth, but probably only because he aided big American names while he was in France and had an excuse of being shipwrecked during an attempt to get back to America.
Correct. William Smith was his name. They tried to make it sound like political sourgrapes, but Ramsay had already written too much on the subject to expect an educated person to believe his gripe was merely political competition. Had Smith not played hostess to American officials over in France, they wouldn’t have let him slide. They did confiscate his property and he admitted to that. It’s a great research case because no one argued with Ramsay on the merits of citizenship. It was Smith’s excuses and alleged attempts to make the journey back to his native country that gave him a pass. Some citizen responses to the local papers at the time attested to Smith as being a weasel.
Great first part. I too eagerly await the remaining sections of your analysis.
I mentioned the following information on Leo Donofrio’s website. I repeat it here in order to suggest that you address it (in whatever way you see fit) in the appropriate future section of your analysis.
Recently published documents show that John Jay was not the only one of our founding fathers who used the term ‘natural born citizen’ in his writings prior to that term’s inclusion in A2S1C5 of the Constitution.
John Adams used it as early as 1783. (See “The Adams Papers: Papers of John Adams,” volume 14, October 1782 – May 1783, copyright 2008 by the Massachusetts Historical Society, published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Editors: Gregg L. Lint, C. James Taylor, Hobson Woodward, Margaret A. Hogan, Mary T. Claffey, Sara B. Sikes, and Judith S. Graham, ISBN 0674026071, 9780674026070, length 582 pages.)
The passage of interest of this volume of John Adams’ writings begins on page 449, and I quote (bracketed passages added by me):
“Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca. 27 April 1783] agreed upon by and between David Hartley Esquire, Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty
“for & in behalf of his Said Majesty on the one Part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L., Ministeres Plenipotentiary of the United States of America for treating of Peace with the Minister Plenipotentiary of his Said Majesty, on their behalf, on the other Part,
“in Addition to those Articles agreed upon, on the 30th day of November 1782 by and between Richard Oswals Esq. the Commissioner of his Britannic Majesty for treating of peace with the Commissioners of the United States of America, in behalf of his said Majesty, on the one Part, and the said J.A., B.F., J.J. and H.L., four of the Commissioners of the Said States for treating of Peace, with the Commissioner of his Said Majesty, on their Behalf, on the other Part.
“1. The Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain Shall enjoy in all and every of the United States, all of the Rights Liberties Priviledges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegience of natural born Citizens of the Said States – and on the other Hand, all Citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain, all the Rights, Liberties Privileges, and Immunities and be subject to the Duties and Allegience of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to except.”
As I indicated to Leo Donofrio last month, the fact of Adams’ use in 1783 of the term “natural born citizens of the Said States” in official diplomatic correspondence on behalf of multiple high-ranking colleagues appears to foreclose the possibility that he, John Jay, or Franklin (I’m not sure who H.L. was) were in any way confused as to what the term meant.
I would say further to you that I do not take from the above passage that Adams viewed U.S. natural born citizens to be in any way equivalent to or the same as British natural born subjects in terms of how those terms are defined. Rather, I believe he was simply trying to articulate that which was the highest form of citizenship on both sides in order that his counterpart on the British side did not object to the perception of unbalanced treatment of British subjects at the hands of U.S. officials. It was particularly interesting to me to find an example of someone referring to “natural born citizens” of the United States in the present tense, prior to the enactment of the U.S. Constitution. This is, of course, consistent with the following category you mention in your post above: “2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.”
Good luck with the remainder of your work.
Sincerely:
Publius
Thanks. We’ll definitely check it out. – UR
Thank you, UNDEAD R.
It’s good to hear the words of the General.
“be Americans in thought, word and deed.”
I believe you have honored his request by undertaking this task with such great care and diligence. I know he would be proud to serve beside you.
Thank you, fellow patriots.
Tex
Bravo. I wish I could put into words what I’m feeling, but I have no words. Great job.
This needs to be mandatory reading for all us citizens
Joseph Galloway: native of Pennsylvania, speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly from 1766 till 1774, intimate friend of Benjamin Franklin, and delegate to the First Continental Congress answering a question about the origins of soldiers in the service of the Continental Congress:
“The names and places of their nativity being taken down, I can answer the question with precision. They were SCARCELY one-fourth natives of America, about ONE HALF Irish, the other fourth English and Scotch ”
All those foreigners, English, Scottish, and Irish. Plenty enough to fight for America, brave enough to create America, willing enough to die for America, but not good enough to lead America. Why? Because they really didn’t care for America like real Americans, so America didn’t care for them. They were just the cannon fodder. It was the few real Americans that won the War.
What’s the difference between that attitude and racism? Is that Leo Donofrio’s attitude also? That Americans should interpret our Constitution today in terms of eighteenth-century racism: no real Americans taking orders from foreigners or even their CHILDREN? Let’s all stumble into a hell of the Undead? Not a chance.
REPLY: At least 13 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Irish. They came here to avoid religious persecution (Catholicism), famine and poverty. I have no idea what your point is, but obviously they weren’t discriminated against here as they were in England where being Catholic was a death sentence. They became citizens along with everyone else who participated in the Revolution. You may want to get your facts straight and lose the race card. Washington is talking about foreigners. You refer to the Pennsylvania society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick. They were American settlers.
PS: You’re obviously not as smart as those dead men. Do some more homework here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QeSrDhhXPf8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false – pg. 138
Typo or pun?
The king seized the post-war opportunity to call for reigning in that power and wealth for the benefit of the mother country.
“Reining in” like controlling a horse, or reigning as in enjoying kingship?
Take out the g.
Both.
Given the enormous historical value of your work, I strongly suggest you include “the date posted” in the title of this entry and each of those to follow.
I can scarcely wait for your next installment.
I appreciate the intent in the comment made by truthbetold11: “This needs to be mandatory reading for all us citizens”. I believe that it should be “Very highly recommended reading” for all U.S. citizens. Considering the highly charged atmosphere around the subject(s) of our constitutional rights, using the word “mandatory” means that someone or something (the government) has the power to force you to read it. The word “mandatory” has caused great concern, as it is, in respect to many interpretations of the Obama Health Care reform. I cannot add more, as I am unable to type any more, comfortably.
Wonderful thing you are doing!
dadfrank
The following was posted by ‘Sallyven’ today on Leo Donofrio’s website. The subject is Sallyven’s daughter’s course of study, which includes Aristotle’s “Politics”. I’m reposting together with my comments to Leo. Please use the information as you see fit.
Still anxiously awaiting your next installment…
Publius
_______
Comment posted by Sallyven to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com on Sunday, September 13, 2009:
My daughter is a student at Hillsdale College, where she is studying Aristotle’s Politics, Book 3, and she mentioned the following passages to me, regarding Aristotle’s views on citizenship:
“Part 1: …Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?…Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty. Nay, resident aliens in many places do not possess even such rights completely, for they are obliged to have a patron, so that they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not say quite simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is immaterial, for our meaning is clear…
Part 2: But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens…
Part 3: …It would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants (for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another)….
Part 5: …Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer. In oligarchies the qualification for office is high, and therefore no laborer can ever be a citizen; but a mechanic may, for an actual majority of them are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years. But in many states the law goes to the length of admitting aliens; for in some democracies a man is a citizen though his mother only be a citizen; and a similar principle is applied to illegitimate children; the law is relaxed when there is a dearth of population. But when the number of citizens increases, first the children of a male or a female slave are excluded; then those whose mothers only are citizens; and at last the right of citizenship is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens…”
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
It appears that even in 350 B.C., “natural born citizenship” was a relevant topic of study; that place of birth was important; that citizenship of the parents was significant; and that the highest form of citizenship was “confined to those whose fathers and mothers were BOTH citizens…
I am sure that many of the founding fathers would have been familiar with these writings, as the studies of great works such as these were not confined, as they are today, to a few unusual places like Hillsdale College…
_______
Response comment posted by Publius to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com on Monday, September 14, 2009, in response to Sallyven:
Sallyven’s daughter’s input, though by this late date not a surprise, is nevertheless a welcome development. Interested parties should carefully review the passages of Aristotle’s “Politics” that Sallyven brought to our attention.
Leo has cut off all discussions having as their basis the proposition that Mr. Obama may be illegitimate, or that his father was not BHO Sr.. As well he should! Let Mr. Obama develop that storyline, however true or untrue it may be, if he feels he needs to in order to demonstrate his POTUS bona fides under A2S1C5.
That said, I was pleased to find that Aristotle, for his part at least, left no doubt as to his understanding as to whether individuals of whom both the parents were citizens at the time of their birth occupy a higher ‘tier’ of citizenship than those whose mothers only were citizens, or those whose mothers were unmarried (thereby rendering them illegitimate). According to Aristotle, such individuals in fact did occupy a higher tier of citizenship, if for no other reason that that they would be the ‘last citizens standing’ if and when all shortages of population are eliminated and all of the other citizens of potentially inferior rank (such as illegitimate children, and children born to citizen mothers and alien fathers) are finally excluded.
It’s my wish that a resolution of the current crisis will result in fresh respect, both for the value of solid U.S. citizenship unfettered by foreign allegience(s), and for the sanctity of traditional marriages in the U.S..
If SCOTUS answers the question of Mr. Obama’s POTUS eligibility in the negative, and Mr. Obama makes no attempt to demonstrate NBC status by proving his parents’ marriage to be void ab initio, this will immediately increase the value of U.S. citizenship held by those who were born to fathers who were U.S. citizens at the time they were born.
Even If Mr. Obama makes such an attempt, and is ultimately successful in demonstrating POTUS eligibility through illegitimacy, there will still be a marked improvement in the value of U.S. citizenship held by those who were born to U.S. citizen mothers, and the letter, if not necessarily also the spirit, of A2S1C5 will have been upheld.
Finally, if Mr. Obama makes such an attempt and is unsuccessful in demonstrating POTUS eligibility through illegitimacy, the value of every marriage between one male U.S. citizen and one female U.S. citizen that is capable of producing children will certainly rise appreciably, and both the letter and the spirit of A2S1C5 will have been upheld. It will finally be established SCOTUS precedent that such sanctified and traditional unions are, collectively speaking, the sole source of that cohort U.S. citizens who are POTUS-eligible (at least in the absence of a future ‘on-point’ constitutional amendment, or a contrary SCOTUS decision in the case of a future candidate whose POTUS eligibility is in dispute).
One can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that such a ruling by SCOTUS will draw from the unmarried millions among us whose cherished children will be revealed, once and for all, to be POTUS-ineligible!
Publius
“The full experiment of government ‘democratical’, but representative, was & still is reserved for us….The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government, and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of ARISTOTLE, or of any other ancient, have been lost.”
~THOMAS JEFFERSON to I.H. Tiffany 1816
While Aristotle focused on birth to citizen parents (ius sanguinis), his predecessors, Plato in the 5th c. BC and Herodotus in the 6th c. BC, included the additional criterion of birth on native soil (ius soli).
Perhaps you know where the quotes of Plato and Herodotus are buried, or why Aristotle did not attach importance to one’s birthplace in determining loyalty and citizenship.
Thank you for your impassioned article on citizenship.
Thanks for reading so far. Yes, we have that buried somewhere. I’ll ask around.
While the Founders were familiar with those writings, it was Washington’s headstrong impulse to place the importance on allegiance because his experience draws from that. It’s one thing to read history even for the Founders, but it’s another to actually draw up a Constitution without taking into consideration what you have found to be true yourself. In other words, the Founders read a lot and drew from various sources, but the ultimate source was derived from their own experiences. Aristotle wouldn’t have been their deciding factor.
-Steve
UR
Thank you for your work and confirmation of what many others and I believe to be the correct definition of the ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen.
I, as a private citizen, have attempted to get the fed courts to define NBC as a civil rights issue. At the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals they say I have no ‘right’ to claim that moniker, then affirmed in part and remanded in part to the lower court. I Petitioned SCOTUS under Rule 11, Petition before Judgement, and it is on the Sept. 29th conference Docket. I am not going to jinx myself by assuming what they will do one way or the other……….
but, two questions for you in preparation of ‘Plan C’…….
1st;
Have you researched the individual Colonies/States, both pre and post the Constitutions Ratification? As I understand it, it was still in each States hands to define and declare who was to be a citizen of their States, at least up to the 14th Amendment.
2nd;……….well, maybe not yet……….to be cont.
UR folks:
I thought you’d appreciate what seemed to me to be a timely post from one of Leo Donofrio’s readers.
It shows Jefferson’s ultimate contempt for those who would claim that the founders incorporated or took their lead from the British common law when forming a new government for the U.S.
Judging from the date given, the statement was made in the months prior to his death. ‘Gloves off’ kind of stuff (what did he have to lose?).
Tom Says:
September 18, 2009 at 3:22 am
Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824
(It)Our Revolution….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…
Wonderfully written. It will be glad to forward this to my family and friends.
Robare, the other sections were done, at least on our end. When we presented them for review, it was said to be in need of more technical sources for the legal-minded. We actually aimed for simplicity and that was fine for the average lay person, but it didn’t pass the professional test for those who they expected would want to delve deeper.
In the end, we were thrown two huge volumes; one 600+ pages and the other over 800 pages and told to go source that into the legislative and judicial segments. In other words, we had to read them, make sure that material was relevant and consistent to the points we already made, while providing a foundation of references that could be later improved upon by others.
It wasn’t exactly the answer we were looking for after having already done a tremendous amount of research, but that’s why they’re the professors and we’re not. Once that gets approved, we’ll get it up. Shouldn’t be too much longer.
[…] https://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ […]
The meaning of Natural Born is simply birth in the country. It stems from the term Natural Born Subject which was used in the American colonies and in Britain, and it meant simply someone who received citizenship due the being born in a country (except for the children of foreign diplomats). The word Naturalize comes from “Natural Born,” meaning that someone who is naturalized is made like someone who is born in the country.
This is what the Wall Street Journal says on the meaning of Natural Born: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”
And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
We aren’t interested in what you, the media or ignorant congressmen have to say while citing nothing to back it up. We are looking for the truth and we’re finding that in history from the people who were there at the time. We’re not interested in any other sources. You are completely wrong. We are aware you were already shown the proof that natural born subject is not the same as natural born citizen and citizen means quite more than you want to admit. For the sake of the public who hasn’t read what you have, David Ramsay refutes you and them back in 1789 (see below). We will be coming out with far more proof than just him, too.
Now when you’re ready to look for the truth from the Founders, which Ramsay is one, then we’ll be willing to listen. But if you’re going to regurgitate unproven nonsense, you will get ignored. This is not about your partisan wishes. This is about straightening this rumor out and you ARE spreading rumors. You also might want to read the entire judiciary record and stop cherry picking it. The Fourteenth Amendment is clear that not all people born in this country are natural born citizens and Sen. Hatch is well aware of that FACT.
You might also want to ask Sen. Hatch why he refused to post the proof we posted at his blog. But feel free to tell him to follow the next update. We send our apologies for the future embarrassment he and you will suffer. We have a lot of intellectual minds studying this hard now. It would do you and the good Senator well to pay attention and open your minds.
A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people who also changed from subjects to citizens.
The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of nobleman. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.
There is also a great difference between citizens, and inhabitants or residents.
Any person living within a country or state, is an inhabitant of it, or resident in it. – David Ramsay
By birth or inheritance, it was clearly defined in 1789, which demolishes what you just wrote. But we’ll give you a snippet of what’s coming next by Ramsay:
4th. None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.
Show us where in that statement that one parent could be an alien of said children? Don’t worry. If this brief example isn’t good enough for you, more is coming. A LOT more. It seems the American people were LIED to.
If it’s not clear to you by now, Strauss. We don’t put up with the bull other blogs do. We’re not into the drama. We’re looking for the truth.
Bravo!!!
David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States . [Charleston, S.C.? N.p.]: Printed in the year 1789.
That’s one of them. That’s one of the pieces we originally submitted to Mr. Donofrio when we were looking for someone who would look at the revolutionary period as proof of where the meaning behind Article II started. It was posted on his blog.
There’s a unique story behind that writing, too. – UR
If it’s any consolation to you, Strauss, we went into this believing that Obama was probably a natural born citizen. We were only interested in finding where the terminology stemmed from. Talk about being enlightened? We were wrong and so are you and Senator Hatch. The difference between us and the both of you is, we were willing to keep an open mind and seek the truth.
Strauss has been worked over on Donofrio’s blog. I have stayed out of much trouble by following Donofrio’s position as to natural born citizen. Thank you for searching out the roots of why the founders required United States Presidents to be natural born citizens. I am impressed with Kamira’s writings on Donofrio’s site. Thanks for the education!
Attn: SMRSTRAUSS
Re NBC might we simply ask and apply a couple of logical questions?
FIRST: Why did our Founders require members of Congress to be “only” a “citizen” while requiring the President (and Only the President) to be a “Natural Born Citizen” (NBC)? What definitions of these two terms can possibly explain this?
SECOND: Why did our Founders use both NBC and citizen within the very same sentence of A2S1C5? The term “citizen” used within the grandfather phrase and NBC used to apply to future generations. Why both terms within the same sentence?!
Either our Founders were careless and lacked a command of the English language … OR … or they had a very-specific and firmly-understood definition of “citizen” vis-a’-vis “natural born citizen.” Therefore ANY definition of NBC must address the above two questions OR it is irrelevant. Period. End of discussion.
Sorry Mr./Ms. Strauss, but YOUR definition does not fit, namely “The meaning of Natural Born is simply birth in the country.” It’s illogical. (My apologies to Gene Rodenberry and Mr. Spock.)
I’m sorry Sir/Madame, but IT truly IS just that simple! All musings of the Supreme Court, “legal scholars” and others aside. I respectfully submit that THE ACID TEST of any definition of NBC must address the above. Period. End of … oh, sorry, I already said this.
Respectfully,
Robare
The valid history of George Washington’s papers retained by Jared Sparks and placed into volumes and later purchased by the Congress and placed in the historical archives can be read at the following link to show, besides the previous sources provided, that there’s nothing bogus about the letters claimed above by ‘History Buff’. They’re quite authentic. Among the duplicates found was a copy among the papers of Governor Morris.
George Washington Parke Custis also wrote his own volume of material not found in any “letterbook”. –
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwabout.html#VIII
“Early in the summer of 1834, George Corbin Washington delivered the public papers that were then in his possession.62 These consisted largely of the military returns which the Government had found so valuable and drafts of Washington’s own letters. During a visit to Cambridge in August, he received 10 volumes of Army returns from Jared Sparks and promptly turned them over to the Department. In November, Sparks himself sent ‘several first drafts of Washington’s Letters, which belong to the collection already in the Dept. of State’ and urged that one of them (Washington’s famous reply to Col. Lewis Nicola), being ‘curious,’ should be carefully preserved. 63 In April of the following year Colonel Washington found a few manuscripts relating to public transactions among the ‘3 or 4 bundles’ of private papers he had retained, and he sent these to the Secretary of State. 64”
The volume quoted from was from the purchased books in the possession of the government. That should be enough to debunk the unsourced rumor the foreigner from Amsterdam alleged. Jared Sparks’ findings are meticulously laid out in that link.
To Malgad:
Concerning your reply to History Buff:
“Anyway, I think the point here is that Washington was definitely a “rank based on merit” man, and he put his own before others because his own were doing it for their country and the others were doing it for their best interests. The only exception we find is Lafayette in Washington’s eyes, but Lafayette was here before the treaty and a unique type of person that the others were not. He actually disobeyed France to come here of his own convictions.”
Marquis de Lafayette was well thought of in the Colonies, and he actually visited a number of places in country after the War. In my hometown he is recognized with a “Lafayette Drive” and a plaque at that location near Kentucky’s Capitol Building.
Hugh
Frankfort, Kentucky
Citizenship conferred by special grant was awarded to the Marquis de Lafayette by the General Assembly of Maryland at the session held on November 1, 1784 to January 22, 1785 at Annapolis, Maryland. It provided that “the Marquis de Lafayette and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof.”
I think I’ll pass on anything Orrin Hatch has to say, especially after reading a dialogue that shows he doesn’t even know the difference between the gas pedal and the brake pedal on a vehicle.
Sen. Orrin Hatch was test-driving a plug-in hybrid Hummer H3, and the 75-year-old Utah Republican was having some technical difficulties.
“How do you start this baby?” Hatch asked of the executives who built the 100-mile-per-gallon SUV.
“It’s started,” an official told Hatch.
“It’s already on?” Hatch asked, surprised. “Heh, heh.”
“Put your foot on the brake, then put it in drive,” the official said. Nothing happened. “Is your foot on the brake? You have to have your foot on the brake.”
“I think I’ve got it on,” the senator replied.
“Nope,” the executive said, pointing out the brake pedal. “There we go.”
“No wonder,” Hatch said. “I had it on the gas.”
You expect us to put any stock in what an idiot like this has to say? I think I’ll wait on whatever the student’s teachers gave them that’s holding this up, thanks.
Lindsey Graham is nothing but a fence-sitter. He has contradicted himself more times than I can count. On Sotomayor, one second he made the comment that she was left of center and in the SAME comment, he said she was mainstream. Nothing like having a solid opinion?
Both of these idiots are RINOS. They say whatever gives them votes because their egos are insatiable. But what else is new about politicians these days? They aren’t known for their intelligence.
If you ask anyone, ask Sen. Byrd. At least he carries around a copy of the Constitution and he called Obama out for his unconstitutional Czars first. Speaking of which, not only are they unconstitutional, but turning out to be one big disgrace and embarrassment for this country.
I urge you to look at two graphics I recently created on this topic. These have been very well received by those on the side of the Constitution:
Graphic Defining Natural Born Citizen
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/graphic-defining-natural-born.html
Graphic Defining “Citizen” vs “Natural Born Citizen”
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-defining-citizen-vs-natural.html
As I am anxiously awaiting your next installment, is there any estimated time of the posting?
Very good work!
There’s a lot of stuff we’d like to put out but we were advised to hold off after experts had the opportunity to verify it all. Those experts have it. All 600+ gigs of it and counting. – UR
Have you seen that Leo Donofrio has closed down his blog as of 29 November?
Yes, we’re aware of that. He’s had a lot of attacks from within and without. Can’t blame the guy really. Our opinion is he’s doing the same thing we were told to do; nothing, until this stuff is thoroughly reviewed by experts higher than us. He’s done his part. He caught their attention and for that he’s a true patriot. At this point however, it’s probably best not to show all the cards. After all, what’s it say when he’s trashed by those who even use what he’s written already? He can’t even trust those who claimed to come from the same mindset. – UR
Looking forward to what’s coming next. There is still more coming, I hope.
A lot more. Thanks for your understanding and patience. – UR
Someone at UD
Please contact me at my email address above. I had posted some research on Chester Arthur in the private blog, and Splooge had suggested that I blog it.
KJ
I’ll have Splooge take a look, thanks. – UR
Hey KJ, I’ve done some Chester Arthur research myself. I’m really interested in yours. It would be great if you contacted me under joss.brown (at) gmx.net or simply sent me the link to your blog. Would be great!
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do you will have perverted and subverted The Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government” James Madison
Considering the ‘historical background’–Can there be any doubt as to the intent behind the inclusion of the natural born citizen req among Article II’s provisions?
The Founders/Framers had no “intentions”, what-so-ever, of permitting NON- U.S. immigrants to install their offspring as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces & Chief Magistrate of the Nation . Could I,possibly, state it any more plainly than this?
It was not only the Framers’ intention (cf. grandfather-clause = US citizens who are also foreign subjects are not natural born). More importantly it was the law. Before Wong Kim Ark every child born of foreign parent(s), i.e. a child with foreign allegiance and non-US citizenship or subjecthood, was not even a US citizen. Nobody considered children of unnaturalized immigrant parents to be citizens, let alone natural born citizens. Only after Wong Kim Ark did all that change, but SCOTUS still only made Wong Kim Ark a citizen, not a natural born citizen.
Correct, but it’s been all said before. Leo Donofrio’s blog went into the first lengthy discussion on this, especially Wong Kim Ark. Kamira (from UR) went into the only 3 possible types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution; and Barry v. Mercein (citation from our research in these comments somewhere) is an example of the law you refer to – children of fathers who were not citizens were not lawfully considered citizens, whether born here or not. They followed the nationality of their fathers; partus sequitur patrem as noted by Justice Story and others (see Barry v. Mercein).
There is a main theme among the many cases we found. Both parents needed to show and demonstrate the desire to make the United States their permanent residence, as this goes back to the caution George Washington made during the Revolution and what this first piece was introduced to clarify.
Most Justices know this history; hence their disclaimer when it comes to being asked if those anchor babies can run for President. They refuse to align Wong Kim Ark with Article II, because they know they’re treading on ground that goes against Washington’s own directives and the first laws that were made on the subject. They can’t deny that history so they just skip over it, neglecting to take either position.
It’s the #1 reason why we need to vote out these progressives who want to see the Constitution and its history scrapped, and even those who aren’t brave enough to defend it honestly. These are the same bunch who would love nothing more than to see an anti-American drop a kid here, educate him thoroughly in some communist country and then come back and hang out for 14 years so he can say he’s entitled to be our President. Absurd I know, but that’s what all this “tolerance” crap is about. We’re told we’re the bad guy if we don’t tolerate it. I say go over to their country and try and pull the same thing. They’ll get as much rope as the noose that hangs them for trying it. – UR
“On every question of construction[of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”
Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823-letter to Judge William Johnson
Gee….now, this poses a real challenge vis-a-vis Article II Sec 1 Cl 5 ..He says, facetiously For God’s sake; Wake up, anesthetized America! The ‘spirit’ What was the Revolution all about? What was it that WE found so “revolting” in the customs and practices of the entrenched monarchies and despotism of the Lands we left behind? Please folks …don’t make me have to “connect the dots” for ya –employ just a smidgen of reason and logic in your thinking.
In September 2009,smrstrauss made opposition comments on this blog. Thus, you may be interested in reading this article which I published yesterday, Feb 11, 2010:
Exposé: Obot SMRSTRAUSS Finally Unmasked!
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/02/expose-obot-smrstrauss-finally-unmasked.html
Great job, Erica, but I’d go back to my first hunch if I were you. Ya missed something. – UR 😉
I was going to post this comment over at RedState after someone had sent me their latest article. But I can’t be bothered with registering, so I’m just going to post it here. I had a lot more research I wanted to add, but we agreed to save that for our own additions.
This is his article http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/02/14/my-final-thought-on-the-birther-issue/
And this is just the beginning of my decimation of these ignorant, intimidated, scared rabbits who seem to be afraid of crazy name-calling that has no basis in fact, and thereby, throw out the law for fear of being ostracized:
—————————–
There seems to be a lot of historical groundwork you haven’t taken into account here as to citizenship in this country.
In fact, by your logic, we have returned to the monarch structure of England whereby birth makes one a subject of the king, irregardless of parentage per International Law and the domicile clarification clause per Justice Joseph Story’s Conflict of Laws – so cited in these Supreme Court cases, albeit heavily discarded here and in many similar elementary interpretations across the internet.
My question to you would be how do you justify this interpretation against scholared jurisprudence of the day? They do not coincide with your interpretation at all, so how did you arrive there?
If the Founding Fathers disavowed birth allegiance alone, and they did, how do you justify your interpretation of Article II with Wong Kim Ark as it relates to ascending to the presidency?
It is one thing to call a think-tank crazy, but it is quite another to dismiss the background of the law which upon its face, would question Obama’s legitimacy and has a place to be answered, regardless if he thinks he shouldn’t be questioned as his recent comments reveal. However, that place is not here and is not to be adjudged in your article and certainly not because Obama said so.
With all due respect, that place of judgment belongs to the United States Supreme Court under a republic form of government this site alludes to protect. I’m afraid this is a matter of law, not your opinion. We are not a banana republic. You also seem to be lacking in historical knowledge of that law and at odds with the republic’s history you purport to celebrate.
But allow me to educate you in a snippet of that review in law, regarding Wong Kim Ark, which seems to escape the superficial interpretations out there and apparently now, embraced in your own article.
“At some stage the Fourteenth Amendment not only permits them to become citizens, but declares them to be so, in such sense that no act of legislature or Congress can deprive them of that right. When does that time arrive? Upon principle and authority, it should arrive when national domicile and intent on the part of the father concur with the place of birth of the child to fix its status. That the facts may in some cases be difficult of determination, is unimportant. That is often true in any question of domicile.” Ide, 1896, summarizing International Law and Justice Story’s conclusions in conjunction with the Founding Fathers’ intent.
So as with the above testament to the Founder’s ideals, so it is with Obama when one is asked a simple question of birth allegiance. When one answers that his birth allegiance is one of dual-nationality, the public does not have a right to inquire as to the legality of that notion? I’m afraid George Washington himself would accuse that messenger of being no patriot at all.
Notwithstanding, this argument is a constitutional one and if the Tea Party does not embrace questions against the Constitution, then it is a political party unto themselves, which I don’t believe they intended to be.
With that said, a mere showing of a birth certificate does not suffice when answering the question behind the intention of Article II, which proclaims that none but a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution, may ascend to the presidency. That determination of facts belongs to the Supreme Court, but the right to ask it, is so stated in the Constitution. For even Bill Clinton stated:
“The Constitution decides who is eligible to be President. And THEN the people decide among which candidate they prefer.”
In other words, the Constitution declares who is eligible, not the people by way of opinion, and certainly not in articles such as yours. And there is a history to that Constitution, whereby subsequent laws have been made and enforced, that has largely been ignored here and elsewhere.
Do you label Mark Levin a birther too when he said, “Obama should not be able to hide it”, when speaking about documents that would prove that Obama was constitutionally eligible? I submit you wouldn’t smear him, a constitutional lawyer with a profound regard for the Founding Fathers and yet, not a birther. Levin is smart enough to separate the media’s label of those who emphatically believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii with the eligibility requirements under the Constitution. It’s not one and the same.
I dare say on both sides of this modern-day argument, lie some pretty obsessed people, lawyers included, with pitchforks in hand, and most of them are embarrassing our Constitution, including you. I have no doubt that they probably make guys like Mark Levin cringe and rightly so.
However, just because you disagree with the motives of some of the insane lawyers we’ve seen take up the cross of this subject, doesn’t mean that some of us intend to be intimidated by the fallout of their actions. YOU seem to be very much intimidated by the antics that have gone on and therefore, instead of clarifying the problem, you elect to distance yourself from the Constitution completely and embrace the left in their living-Constitution a/k/a “anything goes” interpretations.
Congratulations on taking that bait. I think I’ll think for myself and do the required study of the Founders before I reach one of the many elementary school opinions out there, like yours, who didn’t do much studying at all.
Steve
UCONN – UR
https://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/
[…] THE MEANING OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN […]
Cool. When and if you visit the David Library of the American Revolution drop me a note and I’ll treat to a pizza.
Greetings to everyone at UR!
I posted some thoughts on the ZAPEM blog last night myself that are pertinent to the investigation of the Senate back in 2008. I just threw them in the comments where only the truly interested would find it and I’m sure you will.
But here, I’d like to make two important clarifications if I could. There are two separate trains of thought regarding this issue. Both are worth taking note of because it goes to the heart of how the chaos we see today began. And it needs to be said because too many are getting caught up in the side drama and losing sight of the true picture.
First, we must remember that yes, it was Congress who created the atmosphere of deceit and the media, namely MSNBC’s Pete Williams, who perpetuated the initial confusion. The Senate activity is already explained on our blog. The initial collusion of the media becomes evident when you go back and review this video dated December 1, 2008. By the way, someone tried to have that video pulled. I received a copy of the complaint filed with YouTube. Thankfully, YouTube decided the complaint was bogus and it’s still in place.
In any event, the video makes the valid complaint that Philip Berg’s case is “apples and oranges” to Leo Donofrio’s case. The video discusses how Pete Williams screwed it up at length, but ultimately, the under-emphasized theme, is that there were two major distinctions between those two cases:
1. Philip Berg filed suit in order to obtain Barack Obama’s birth certificate. He maintained that was all that was required of his suit and then he would be satisfied that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
2. Leo Donofrio filed suit based on his allegation that neither Barack Obama, Roger Calero or John McCain was a natural born citizen. The relief sought was not a bonafide birth certificate and/or other documentation, but an interpretation of Article II as to the presidential eligibility clause. That case was not dismissed per se when it came before the SCOTUS. It was never even heard. It just never made it on the list of accepted dockets for that session. Few cases ever are, no matter the merit or non-merit of the pleadings. It’s a matter of how many cases they can fit in on the docket and for that reason, many are turned down. Unfortunately, this particular subject has been avoided countless times in the history of this country. This is nothing new at all with the Supreme Court. Every SCOTUS has, as Mr. Donofrio pointed out, “punted” when faced with interpreting Article II.
It’s also interesting to point out that this is the first video that ever called for the public’s attention on December 5, 2008. This is prior to any Tea Party movement and it’s compelling how fast the topic was immediately run into the ground even before the slur of “teabaggers” entered into the fray. If the media has been consistent in one thing, it’s their attacks against the public whenever they question if the Constitution is being followed faithfully.
We must also remember that prior to either of these suits, it was John McCain who first saw an eligibility contest against him in the 2008 election. It wasn’t Barack Obama. Hollander v. McCain appeared just after S.R. 511 was being manipulated through Congress. That case was dismissed and never made it to the SCOTUS.
Out of the Philip Berg case sprang the original question of Barack Obama’s birthplace. Leo Donofrio, in Donofrio v. Wells, never alleged anything about where Barack Obama was born. In fact, that attorney accepted the word of Hawaii but insisted it was a constitutional question of eligibility nevertheless.
A series of cases followed after Berg and Donofrio; all trying to replicate either one or both facets of Berg and Donofrio’s arguments. All of them were nothing but a regurgitation of copied points, research and law. There is absolutely nothing new in any of their cases. The vying for center stage after plagiarizing their work, is the most disgusting of ironies, but it’s true.
The media followed this publicized internet mess like a Hollywood soap-opera, and in my opinion, this is what convoluted the issues. Pete Williams started the confusion, but it was the rest of the media who thought it was fun and happily attacked the subsequent attorneys who “bravely stepped up to the plate” to try their hand at it. They all engaged in patting themselves on the back for every point they scored that knocked an adversary down a peg. It was jaw-dropping to watch.
In the end, the birthplace became the only point the media would broadcast. Nothing about the Constitution was heard ever again and that’s a calculated shame. When people should be talking about the Founders’ intentions for this country based on historical fact, instead, they dilute the issue to a reduced pitiful meandering argument about paperwork. Yet, this is the same media who had no problem advertising S.R. 511 as if it were a law in the works that was expected to “pass” the Senate; when the truth was, it wasn’t anything but a mere opinion that meant nothing. There was also no mention whatsoever that the real Bill, S. 2678, that they tried to pass in February, 2008, that really would have tampered with the Constitution, FAILED. S.R. 511 was nothing but a scam to have the public believe they really won S. 2678. They didn’t!
Then the naysayers tried to attack us, saying that our investigation was flawed because The Natural Born Citizen Act text is on the internet and not scrubbed as we reported. Well, let me tell you. The shadow-copy we refer to in our article was, at the time that it was posted, the only text of it to be found. It was scrubbed, as we pointed out. We had a computer expert checking every inch of this internet. It wasn’t there. The link to it kicked back to a 404 Error – Page Not Found. Just because they put it back after we found the cached copy, isn’t our problem. And isn’t that so convenient that it’s made its reappearance?
Then they attacked us for the use of the terminology “unincorporated territory”, yet failed to read Professor Chin’s law review because it was HE who used the term we quoted. So, if that’s the only thing they can come up with, I’d say we did pretty good and can refute both of those shallow attacks as false. The truth is the truth of what the Senate did and how the media manipulated it, plain and simple.
The convolution of facts and continuation of lawsuits by attorneys incompetent to handle them is what is causing the chaos we see today.
I know I’m going to irritate quite a few by saying this, but the truth is, with the exception of Donofrio and Hollander, you don’t start a lawsuit and then ask the internet public to help you research the law and fund the costs involving it. It reeks of incompetency. Once that smell gets out, it’s open season and guess who they’re hunting? BIRTHERS. Why? Because it’s too easy to label people as “loons” when they don’t know what they’re doing legally and act on hypothetical evidence they can’t prove and then wonder why their cases are thrown out of court and they face court sanctions like Berg did.
It’s also easy for the media to use Berg-followers as their point of interest. Better to take on easy prey than have to tell the public that their Constitution hasn’t been read properly, and then have to cite Donofrio’s lawsuit in the correct context. The media has proven they never had any intention of doing that. Best to lump Donofrio in with Berg and call it all the same thing. Take that focus off the Constitution. Then they just mop up the ducklings left by painting them with the same “Birther-brush”. This was all a calculated ploy.
In the meantime, the Constitution suffers because people are fed the erroneous conclusion that birthright citizenship was always what the Founders intended. That’s nonsense and factually untrue.
What’s worse is when people such as Joseph Farah show up at the Tea Party Convention this past month in Tennesee and is summarily dismissed as an unwelcome “loon” by some. It sets the domino effect in motion for the media to pounce on and they did.
I’m surprised at Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck, but they both did just that. I assume it’s because FOX doesn’t want to entertain another re-run of Jerome Corsi’s flubbed investigation and isn’t too educated on early American law or history. Then again, who is? Not many, that’s for sure. They don’t teach it in schools anymore.
But let’s remember something about these two individuals. Bill O’Reilly is not a historian or a lawyer. Glenn Beck only started studying the Constitution since sliding into Bob Basso’s seat. Both have books to sell and jobs on a major network. They do movies together. There’s motive in that. It’s called money. Neither has breathed a word about the substance of Donofrio’s claim, yet both push the Berg agenda so hard, they have since managed to lump everyone into the “Birther” theme as well. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yet these are the same people who thrash others for “bad journalism”. Where is Speaker Newt Gingrinch now, Mr. O’Reilly? He wrote a book, too. Did you bother asking him? You sure made it your business to grill Gov. Palain but she didn’t write a book about American history and the Constitution. Newt did, so why are you asking her? But I’d settle for a Mark Levin if you can manage to pry it out of him. I doubt it since it’s sheer suicide for anyone with a career in this business to take a stand without having their legs cut off. People like you just decide to join in on the bloodbath and that’s what makes it unconscionable.
Truth be known, I was shocked to find out that even Newsbusters hired a kid to Twitter news briefs online and all he streams all day is jabes at #birthers. Yes, they even have a hashtag for it with some of the most incoherent and immature rantings I’ve ever read.
None of these people have a clue what they’re talking about or even how this whole thing started. All they are doing is adding to the chaos like the continuing lawsuits have.
In closing, I’d like to commend UR for all their help, their friendship and their unprecedented research. The level of experienced talent these groups continue to attract in private, gives me much hope for the future and theirs. It’s amazing how much its grown. I’m sure when the chaos subsides, the truth will come out in a better light of day. It always does.
I apologize for being long-winded but I have not written on this topic in some time. There’s even more in my comments over at ZAPEM. If you have time and would like to share your thoughts, feel free. I don’t claim to speak for the rest of our group of yours. I’m done – for now.
God Bless!
– Michelle
I always get teary-eyed when I listen to the song at the end of that video, Michelle. The words are haunting. Yes! It was made even before the word Tea Party was ever uttered and old Pete was there in D.C. to laugh and mock the people who came on Dec. 5th. Their mocking and laughing hasn’t quit. Thanks for sharing that again.
Love ya,
Kelly
If it’s gotta end..
Then let it end in flames..
Let it Burn!
Let it Burn!
It ends where it began..
So hot with love we burned our hands.
It’s not gonna end though. The sleeping giant has awoken. People love their Constitution after all and there’s so many aspects of it to defend. People are going back to where it began. 😉
I think you’re right. We need to be there for what’s being attacked now. We can always come back to this when stronger people are elected to do the right thing and it seems that’s happening after all. Talk to ya soon!
Michelle,
With all due respect, you forgot to mention Attorney Hemenway who is now the lead attorney in Hollister v. Soetoro. He is quit unlike Berg or Taitz. He’s not trying to raise money via the internet. He is a seasoned lawyer who cares deeply about the country. Furthermore, it was Hemenway and his team that recently uncovered and entered into the case, Hawaii’s Territorial Law, Chapter 57 – “VITAL STATISTICS, I”, shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) which allowed baby’s born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative.
Until that discovery by them, it was assumed that such a law was in place in 1961, but no proof was available. Until then, only the 1982 revised version could be pointed to, which of course didn’t apply in 1961.
There are other attorney’s working on this, that don’t seek the “lime light” or hits on their paypal button.
The truth will come out.
What is there? Something like almost 100 cases that has something to do with Obama out there? I don’t think she’s talking about every one of them. I think she’s making the point that “birthers” are a spin-off of Berg, a guy who is a liberal and didn’t care about anything but proving ID credentials and having cult-followers slapping that paypal button. He didn’t care if Obama was born to the most ruthless, anti-American born and never had any intention of settling here and accepting our values. Just grab a chick who has no interest either way and pop out a kid on U.S. soil and you too can be president. It’s just stupid and implies the founders were dumb. She’s trying to say his case was completely out of the ballpark compared to Leo’s, but the media treated them no differently and everyone got slapped with the same “birther” label from there. This gives an uneducated public the impression that the founders thought the same way as Berg. That’s the bigger picture here and O’Reilly sells it, too. No difference in that. The propaganda alone is selling fast and people are lapping it up like pigs at the trough because they don’t know any better.
You know, there’s another point in this re-visitation of events. If “birthers” are “loons” as Bill O’Reilly says, but the public insists that this country stands by birthright citizenship, then I can lump them ALL into the looney-bin too, can’t I? If you think about it, there’s nothing different from “birthers” that were born out of the Berg case and those that stick to the claim of birthright citizenship, except a minute few “birthers” who insist that Obama was born in Kenya because some crystal ball told them. I can count those people on my toes. RedState and Beck might want to think about that. They think the same way as that liberal they’re criticizing. They have everything in common with the Berg-teaching and nothing in common with Donofrio or our history. The problem is they never took the time to see the difference and are the pot calling the kettle black.
If you look at the video “Donofrio Blasts MSNBC’s Pete Williams” you can see that LD saw trouble coming back then. He’s practically screaming for people to see the difference between the two cases and how little Petie was snowballing the facts back then. LD was right. He knew exactly where this was headed. It’s the latter cases that tried to give the crystal-ballers an audience and justify their existence. But the fact is there are no facts to make that claim and that’s why Berg was sanctioned by the court. You can’t go into court and say, “I think this guy might not be born here because, you know, you only need to be born here to be president. It was settled in the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark.” Uh, no dope. And since Zap already spilled the beans on the Chinese Exclusion Act, I will say no more. But we have lots more! 😉
– Malgad @ UR
Uhh, I clicked on your link there, rxsid, and it seems that Gregory S. Hollister is the same guy that Philip J. Berg represented in his failed suit. And you’re from thebirthers.org. So you wanna tell me why we should entertain this again? You want us to plug for you? Is that the problem. Ok, but you’re not gonna like it. Here it goes…
You guys are the same people that gave Donofrio’s case a bad taste in everyone’s mouth and skewed the facts along with MSLSD.
You know, I really wouldn’t care, but it’s guys like you that got guys like us lumped into the same looney-bin by the MSLSD, which of course was their goal all along. And there’s another joker in your group that was guilty of taking Kelly’s research, copyrighting it (that’s the joke of it) and tried to make his “birther” case legit by tying it in with our historical homework next to the proverbial paypal button of your own.
Let’s say this again so that it’s clear for all the netizens to read:
WE ARE NOT BIRTHERS!
Remember where the term came from because it was MSLSD. It’s a term to coin a group of people who do not believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. It doesn’t MATTER if he was born in Hawaii. The issue is A2, S1, C5. If you guys want to slap a label on yourselves that MSLSD gave you and do it with pride, you have that right, but do us a favor and count us out of it. We have nothing in common with you or the rest of the internet lawyers out there looking for attention that only serves to propagandize the Constitution into something it never said, birthright citizenship.
And no, we don’t like those lawyers that entertain the birth certificate issue while claiming their case is about A2, S1, C5 either. The reason for that is they are the first to rip off Donofrio’s work, then diss the guy to all hell, and climb into his shoes as if they own them.
Does that make us rude? Maybe, but it also makes us unafraid to tell the truth.
-Malgad @ UR
UCONN
Malgad, you’ve misread me completely.
Check my screen name on FR (rxsid). You’ll see quite clearly I’m on Donofrio’s “side”. Matter of fact, my tagline has a quote from him for a very long time now. Don’t take my word for it, see my posts over there. My take on this is that I don’t have 100% proof of where he was born. But, that doesn’t ultimately matter because he was born subject to a foreign government. I too, clearly see that the framers were influenced by Vattel, undoutably on the defintion of the term “Natural Born Citizen.”
Who, or “what” constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well.
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
(http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt) Madison’s notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
Click to access 0586-01_Bk.pdf
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: “Des citoyens et naturels”
To English: “Citizens and natural”
French text (about citizens): “Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages.”
—————————————————————————————-
To English: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: dregs has this company by certain duties and subjected has its authority, they take part with equality has its advantages.”
French text (about “natural” born citizens): “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
—————————————————————————————-
To English, gives this: “the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens”
The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well…some examples:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss (from Attorney Apuzzo).
I don’t know who the birthers.org people are. Never meet them.
Attorney Hemenway is in no way shape or form of the same camp as Berg is. Hemenway is the lead attorney on the Hollister case now, after Hollister dumped Berg. That case, Hollister, is still on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for DC Circuit #09-5080.
Ok, it’s ramjet767
thebirthers.org
who tried to spam this site with the same links. You’re right. I mixed you up with the cloud of spam we get. My apologies.
But! Hollister is the same dude that Berg represented and it was Berg who started the “birther” craze. Re-read the history of how this happened because Michelle is dead on and that video shows that Donofrio saw it coming a mile away. I started to read the Hollister complaint. It’s about a birth certificate under it all.
Also, who do you think gave Apuzzo the Ex Parte Reynolds research? Zapem gave it to him. In fact, where do you think he got most of whatever wasn’t taken off of Donofrio’s work and blog? UR. We gave out gigs of stuff we dug up, to quite a few people, including him. That’s a fact. You’re not teaching us anything new with those links, sorry dude.
We harped on the revolutionary history first and tied it into the truth about the Constitution. I’m not tooting my horn here, but let’s set the record straight. Donofrio was the ONLY one who would hear us out aside of a couple cool historians and our professors and now some pretty good heavy-weights who are also involved in private. But Donofrio didn’t try to act like he researched it himself. We had some awesome dialogues with him going through this stuff. The guy is amazing! He didn’t treat us like stupid kids and that’s what set him apart from the rest on the internet. He doesn’t need to plagiarize anyway. He’s done an enormous amount of work in his own right.
This is what you and probably no one else knows. The Apuzzo pending lawsuit is really nothing more than a re-run of other lawsuits combined. They were the ones who hooked up with and plugged for that birthers site, not us. And why they dissed Donofrio after he offered so much research, is anyone’s guess. My question to them is, when did this become about the fame? Because that’s how you’re acting. You wanna seem smart, gain the public trust but at someone else’s expense? That’s just wrong and it’s drama I’d rather not get into.
I don’t care what anyone doesn’t like about the guy’s lifestyle or what have you, no one can say he didn’t give it his best shot. He didn’t deserve the treatment he got. He never claimed to be anything more than an average guy who went to law school, didn’t like it and moved on. But he never said he lost interest in the country. The truth is, if it weren’t for Donofrio, we wouldn’t have learned what we did, so we owe him that gratitude.
As for Vattel, as it was said before, that started with The Federalist Blog and we happen to know it was written as a result of Donofrio’s case. If you don’t believe me, just check the dates. There’s also far more research on Vattel that hasn’t been put out there. All I see in Apuzzo’s docs is the same research that was put out on Donofrio’s blog. The really GOOD stuff wasn’t on there and I haven’t seen it yet. There’s historical connections that if these guys were so smart, why didn’t they find it? Because they’re too busy engaging morons and giving them an audience they don’t deserve. Those guys, they’ll give an audience to but diss LD? Messed up drama.
So not for nothing, but I see nothing new here that you’re telling me, sorry. What did I miss? I honestly don’t see it.
-Malgad @ UR
UCONN
And if it’s still not clear:
The Constitution decides who is eligible to run for president.
But it’s up to Congress make legislation that the FEC would have to comply with. Therefore, it’s the Congress you want to go if you’re looking for regulating the conditions of an election by way of law by making certain documentation a necessity before someone is able to appear on the ballot. Right now, these dumbasses allow Mickey Mouse to appear and naturalized citizens like Roger Calero in N.J., when they should be throwing out any ballot that does not conform with the Constitution, because that’s their job and they’re not doing it.
The courts can’t force the Congress to do their jobs either. But the people can force them to do it or impeach them or recall them because they are a representative body, but I don’t see you guys out there doing that.
In fact, all I see are maybe a couple congressmen trying to stop this from happening again and the rest of them blockading the bills by voting it down and refusing to sign on as sponsors to the only remedy that makes sense.
If it’s not clear that these are the same congressmen that are being voted out of office, leaving in droves, or coincidentally dropping dead, I don’t know what is. People get it despite the MSLSD.
-Malgad @ UR
UCONN
My intent at the postings was to show that I’m not in the “b.c.” corner, but rather in the “NBC” corner.
I would never claim, and didn’t here, that I was the first at anything relating to this whole issue, or that I’ve offered up information that is new or revealing. I’m under no dilusions of granduar. I do, however, do my part to try and inform people about the history that has been “lost” or forgotten.
All that I posted there has been available for years (some of it since the framers wrote them, and Vattel, of course long before them). I simply collated some as a way to “show” my view on this. Where I’m “coming from” as it were.
I’m under no illusions that the courts can “remove” BHO from office. I mean…how could they do that anyway (setting aside their actual Constitutional duty & limitations)?
I am hopeful, however, that somewhere along the way, before he is allowed to successfully usurp an entire full term, that SCOTUS would hear one of the complaints (perhaps one yet to be filed) and make a ruling as to his AII, S1, C5 eligibility. Then, perhaps, it’s up to Congress to remove him. Although, if he’s found to be a usurper, how could Congress remove him (since he wouldn’t be a POTUS per the Constitution)? Who knows, the country will cross that bridge when/if we get there.
Otherwise, his “precedent” is set, to the detriment of the republic.
The Hollister complaint, indeed, started out as “Berg’s” and about the birth certificate. But it isn’t anymore now that Hemenway is on the case. If you read the complaint since Hemenway is the lead, you will see they’ve introduced the actual question about eligibility as intended by the framers in A2, S3, C5. In other words, it’s much more than simply the “b.c.” now.
I hear you, but what I’m saying is there’s a history to all these suits and a lot of it’s not good and not known. I also fail to see your point where Hollister isn’t talking about birth certificates again. I realize it’s a simple concept for people to rally around when they don’t understand the history behind the Constitution, but it’s dangerous and caused much damage already. I really wish people weren’t led down that road at all. They become tunnel-visioned and that’s all they can see, “show me the birth certificate”. It doesn’t require all that much work. Neither does copying another attorney’s work and shoving it into a new lawsuit while stomping him into the ground. I’m not so sure I see the mentality of all this nonsense, so yeah, I did my rant on it, but I’m not going to fester over it.
I commend anyone who really gets out there and tries to find something new that someone else didn’t find. That’s what we’re all about. Hey, I’m all for it. More power to you. But at the same time, I’m not going to be a sheeple and rally around the next lawsuit who repeats the same crap that’s all been said before and bow before the master who copied it. Or think, hey, let’s start a website and make some money on Google ads! Or, let’s start a blog and copy everything already said and copyright it and then have a pending case glorify us so we look like a force to be reckoned with. This has all been done and it was damaging.
You’re saying that Hollister is new and it’s not. Under it all, it’s about the BC. Show me where it’s not? You’re advising me to go read Apuzzo’s blog. I’m saying I don’t have to because I already know where that information came from and it’s not new stuff. We’ve been following this thing since S. 2678 came out when Zap wrote it. We’re pretty clued in on who all the players are.
I’ll say it again:
1. The place to interpret the Constitution is in the Supreme Court. But in order to attempt approaching them, one must be competent enough to make their case. You don’t instigate suit and THEN go online and solicit your talking points. You either know what you’re doing or you don’t. You can’t just have a feeling of injustice because we all have that. You need the best constitutional lawyers, historians and professionals at the helm.
2. The place to clarify documentation to be provided to the FEC prior to an election, is through your representatives and State legislators. If you’re not happy with the way they are complying with the Constitution through neglecting to pass the appropriate legislation that is in line with the Constitution, then you have to impeach them when they go against the Constitution, recall them for not supporting the Constitution or throw them out in the next election in favor of someone who will.
That’s how it’s done.
-Malgad @ UR
UCONN
What do you think about the FOIA initiative started by jbjd? I believe she’s a Democrat attorney who wanted Hillary Clinton. In any case, she has filed a complaint with several AGs claiming election fraud because the DNC certified Obama as constitutionally eligible. She has also discovered that six states have FOIA laws that apply to clubs like the DNC and the RNC.
Rather than attempting to rehash her arguments, let me give you some links to review. I would appreciate your input because I’m in Texas and, at her suggestion, have filed a FOIA request with Texas DNC Chairman, Boyd Richie.
Is this an avenue worth pursuing, or a dead end?
Out of the Mouths of Babes
Remember the Alamo
htt://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/texas-two-step/?
Texas Two-Step
Home page
http://jbjd.wordpress.com
I wasn’t advising you to go read Apuzzo’s blog. I merely cited it as from were I (personally) got the information from verbatim. Simply a citation, that’s all.
As far as Hollister, if you’ll look at my post, I wasn’t saying it’s new. Rather, I was saying it’s “different” now in that since Hemenway, they have amended it to include the “NBC” issue. You’ll see below that Hemenway and Berg are not on the same “page” on the issue. IMO, Hemenway took over a terrible case and attempted to improve upon it, namely, by introducing the concepts of divided loyalties, foreign fathers, Vattel, and Natural Born Citizen as it applies to the Constitution. I’m not saying I think this case will ultimately win the day. Although, I certainly hope it does.
HOLLISTER v SOETORO – JOINT RESPONSE in Opposition FILED – To Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae
“Ultimately the undersigned, in viewing the Berg web site noted by the court below, found that a legal position was being taken on it that was contrary to the positions of the undersigned and Colonel Hollister with regard to the meaning and importance of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement that a President be, in order to be eligible for that office, a “natural born citizen.
It was contrary efforts of Berg and Joyce that created two divergent arguments that required this Court to order Hemenway and Hollister to “coordinate” their submission.”
There, we can see the divergence of “view” by Hemenway vs. Berg.
HOLLISTER v SOETORO – JOINT MOTION – To Schedule Oral Argument
“In addition to that decision in 1874, there have been other Supreme Court decisions in which the question of the “divided loyalty” created by a child’s having a parent, particularly the male parent, not be a citizen, have been discussed. In several of these cases the influence of the writer on international law, Vattel, as having been known to and an influence upon our Founders, was discussed. One of the most prominent of these was by no less a figure than John Marshall himself, writing in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch.) 253, 289 (1814). Perhaps the greatest figure in our early jurisprudence made it abundantly clear that it was the opinions of Vattel’s 1758 treatise that should be considered when reflecting on the intent of the constitutional framers such as what was meant by a phrase that they chose such as “natural born citizen.” Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk. 1, ch. 19 § 212.”
He goes on to mention the term “Natural Born Citizen” 12 times while referencing earlier case law along with many of those references. The last mention, is this: “As we have seen, the fact here that the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama’s father was Kenyan is not even denied. And that alone casts his status as a “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in doubt”
HOLLISTER v SOETORO – Joint Motion – To Substitute Reply Brief
“Our arguments show that, particularly because we have shown that by the holding of the Supreme Court and the facts that the defendant Soetoro has stated throughout his political career, that his father was not a citizen, his status as a “natural born citizen” is “in doubt.” At the very least, when the Supreme Court has held that an issue is “in doubt,” seeking to have that doubt clarified is a good faith extension of existing law.”
I’m simply commending Hemenway (a World War II veteran
, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (class of 1951) and a Rhodes Scholar), a seasoned attorney and an honorable man, for getting involved in this issue in the first place, and trying to “right a wrong” by what Berg started.
It’s people like Hemenway (& Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Apuzzo, Pidgeon) who have done more, and put more on the line, than 99.99+% of the country. They are all to be commended. Yourselves, and all other folks out there working to get the truth out, included of course.
If you wanted to educate people and not seem as though you’re only pushing a new lawsuit, then leave the birth certificate crowd. If it’s about the Constitution, that should be the only issue. Some people have been distracted and these latest comments suggest it was done on purpose to get people to believe Berg (and Gary Kreep) that say one only needs to be born here and the Framers words and warnings meant nothing. It also seems that the facts show Berg teamed up with NBC to sell a bag of lies about said Constitution. Now they show up at CPAC last week and bring a whole new distraction with them.
I’m sure you know this, but Philip Berg is also a 9/11 Truther, besides being a birther?
The birther message is wrong. Every single lawyer out there, including Apuzzo and his client(s), would do well to distance themselves from any birther label and if they don’t, they deserve to be ignored. Let’s see how they proceed. Considering they only picked up on the revolution after these kids did the homework, speaks volumes. Apuzzo is no “constitutional expert” as his client is selling. The “experts” were the researchers they copied from. To tell you the truth, I get sick listening to them patting themselves on the back all day long to the point that I stopped listening because I know damn well where they got their points from.
The birther crowd is nothing but a bunch of uneducated people who bought the birth certificate demand and stated they would go away as soon as Obama produced a validated, long form birth certificate. They don’t believe he was born in HI. The Constitution doesn’t mean much to them, at least as to what it truly means.
The birth certificate has gotten so loud out there, people have lost sight of the more important issue, which is who is actually eligible to run for POTUS under the Constitution. If you don’t distance yourself from the simple-minded crowd detracting from the Constitution and pushing birther mantras in any form, including a combined form, then you’re part of the problem.
I think that sums up what’s been said recently and people would do well to listen. Stop following Berg. Stop following anyone who brings attention to birthers. A true patriot would see where following any birther is going. They’re toxic to the Constitution.
I can tell you that UR is not affiliated with any “birther” movement. Read the blogs. You’ll see we never endorsed that type of thinking. Yet it is “birthers” who like to come in and plug their wares. This much we’ve been well aware of for some time. Donofrio’s site is no exception. They did it repeatedly to him no matter how many times he told them to get lost. What we saw was Donofrio taking issue with the law and we felt there was some historical material that deserved to be included. For the longest time, we just put it over there at his site. It was LD who encouraged us to start our own. The problem is when people take that history and mix and confuse it with what the “birther” label stands for. That’s what leads the sheep to the slaughterhouse. They gather all these sheep and detractors and then they sit back and attack each other because, like Berg, they drool for all the attention – and they like the paypal donations. Sometimes, it’s quite comical. Underneath it all, it’s pretty pathetic. These are supposed to be adults. But if you look at the larger picture, it’s not comical at all because people are led to believe that birthright citizenship was a founding principle and it was definitely not and that’s the only thing that caught our eye.
We have no doubt that in the longer scheme of things, should the Republicans put up an equally questionable candidate, the Democrats will be the first to scream. The reason neither like to talk about it in public is because both parties are guilty of attempting to change the Constitution in favor of birthright citizenship and their Bills and attempted amendments are proof. The law reviews themselves are hypocritical since most of the liberal ones come right out and admit that they feel the Constitution should be changed to birthright citizenry.
Berg, Kreep, Taitz and even Alan Keyes are wrong where it comes to the Constitution. Even the stuff they have on Vattel is wrong. Natural law has absolutely nothing to do with Article II as Apuzzo suggests. The key part to the Vattel connection has yet to be unveiled. We never gave him that part of the research and opted not to after he began associating with birthers and interpreting Vattel completely wrong. BTW, so did Taitz. Completely wrong. There’s a very simple reason why Vattel was read at the constitutional convention, but none of those people know what it is and yes, it can be proven.
Steve – UR
I believe that the “political correctness” of birthright and dual citizenship is one of the reasons the Constitutional definition of NBC is being overlooked by the public. This speech by Dr. Edward Erler addresses the problems with this practice which is not supported by the Constitution:
“Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny” http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07
In my opinion, the Obama eligibility issue has brought to light not only the procedural debacle of properly vetting Presidential candidates, the problems with the courts’ view of “standing”, and reliance on case law, but the need for a thorough reconsideration of citizenship and immigration issues.
I wrote a piece, here:
in which I tried to remove the “political correctness” of US citizenship from the Presidential eligibility issue so people could see a side to the debate not colored by their bias on birthright citizenship.
The entire “birther” controversy bothers me personally on so many levels. Obama’s lack of “transparency”, the mockery and ridicule of Constitutionalists, the lack of coverage by the media, the failure of the courts to address the issue, the notion that even children of illegals are entitled to birthright citizenship…the list is endless.
And, as I wrote in my article, this eligibility debacle is the most symbolic of all Constitutional issues we face today, for “either [the President’s] power is granted, and thereby limited, under the Constitution—or he is placed, or places himself, over and above it and the law.”
Dr. Erler concluded his speech with this statement: “Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.”
The problem with the “birther” movement is that it embraces the notion of birthright citizenship; the very same thing that the Imprimis article negates. Berg is the Pied Piper that is leading these people right over a constitutional cliff and they can’t even see it. As far as we’re concerned, they have become, and might as well revise their title to: “the birthright citizenship” movement.
Our Professors are of the same mind as Hillsdale College with the exception of more attention and study done on the historical and legal points to back up what Hillsdale already says. Apparently, nowadays you have to footnote the obvious in extreme detail and even then, some people will try to find a way to contest the simplest evidence. When they can’t do even that, they use the tired argument that these principles are old hat and don’t conform with the global society rules, which, by the way, don’t even exist. They made them up because, as you say, it’s “politically correct”.
While they can cite conflicting Supreme Court cases all day long, the one thing they can’t argue with are the founding principles beginning at the Revolution. Principles that are grounded against being born into subjectship to any sovereign and points to a history that saw a revolt break out against it.
The Imprimis Professor is correct, “Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law..“, and is evidenced as far back as David Ramsay’s Dissertation on Citizenship where he clearly states that the differences between “Natural-born-subjects” and “Natural-born-citizens” is “immense” and dispels any of the rumors out there today that state otherwise.
There’s much more to say on this but I don’t have time right now. Suffice it to say that Imprimis didn’t reference the Chinese Exclusion Act which is essential to understanding Wong Kim Ark and we found the original papers documenting the reasoning behind that court’s ruling. But still, The Chinese Exclusion Act had nothing to do with what the Framers’ intended when they wrote Article II. The Act was a law, based on a treaty with the Chinese Emperor, that withheld citizenship. The ruling attempts to reverse the damage done to those who couldn’t make a choice by law but were settled residents of this country and were rejected regardless. Obama doesn’t have that excuse. Wong Kim Ark doesn’t come even remotely close to his situation. Look up Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847) and you’ll see the contrast in ficticious beliefs vs. law that this country did enforce before people tried to change it without a constitutional amendment. As for the Fourteenth Amendment, there’s just too much proof to negate “birthright citizenship” and one of them is already stated in the Hillsdale College article you cite, so I won’t bother repeating what’s already been said.
Of more importance today, we have to revisit the true difference between the Donofrio v. Wells case versus the Berg v. Obama cases because:
a) Many people still don’t understand the difference between the two; and
b) Berg infiltrates the 2010 CPAC to advertise an upcoming march on Washington of his own. The pamphlet passed around only states that he is seeking documentation of eligibility, but in the same venture, he also states and promotes the faulty “birthright citizenship” premise.
How can people say it’s about the Constitution when they’re rallying around a man who doesn’t even understand the Constitution and damages it by ignorantly running around telling people that birthright citizenship is a done deal in this country?
Then you have those who shun Berg “birther” investigation queries regarding Obama’s birth and education records, yet these are the very same people who unquestionably accept Berg’s “birthright citizenship” propaganda. See how that works? We find no difference in the media personalities who are perpetuating this falsehood by inadvertently agreeing with Berg when all is said and done. When they dismiss the queries for documentation, what they don’t tell you, is that they accept the “birthright citizenship” premise, exactly as Berg does. In all actuality, they think exactly like he does.
The only difference between those personalities and Berg, is merely the fact that they’re satisfied with the COLB image, a newspaper birth announcement and Hawaii’s murky statements.
It would be one thing if Berg rejected “birthright citizenship”, but he doesn’t. He fully pushes it as fact and that’s why people need to reject him and those that follow his movement. But we’re not seeing even that. What we’re seeing are people who link to “birther” websites out of one side of their mouth and from the other side, they claim to seek a court opinion on Article II. And we wonder why people are confused? MNBC’s objective all along was to confuse and few are calling Berg out for the damage he has done.
It’s very clever to claim that one is cloaking themselves in the Constitution, but when MSNBC was behind it all along, as the above posts reflect, people would have to be really naive and stupid to not see where this is going.
I have more to say on what you wrote and what Imprimis wrote, but I want to run it past my professors first if you don’t mind. Give me a little time. Thank you for your interesting post.
– John –
Undead Revolution
Case Footnote:
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.
*****Please do not publish this comment.****
Email me, if possible. I am working on an article on birthright and dual citizenship, and would like to run the idea and draft by you, if possible, before I submit it for publication.
Thanks!
Berg is the deception here. He deceives people into believing that birthright citizenship is a founding principle (we have his audios stating as much) and uses the birth certificate and all its makeup to cover up the real dirty acne underneath. It’s a trap. It always was a trap and if these “birthers” don’t wake up quick, MSNBC is going to gloat over every minute you spend outside of Washington D.C. protesting over a piece of paper. They are going to love every minute of it because you are playing right into the theme they pound the drums for – a return to the feudal principle known as jus soli that prevailed throughout Europe and was rejected by the founding fathers as tyranny. (John Adams – 1765 Dissertation)
Those of you who think Berg is acting alone better think again. We don’t think so. Look at his history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg
Every interview he has done, he makes no secret of being a Democrat who contributed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign both monetarily and logistically. He’s a 9/11 Truther who not only believes the government was behind the attacks on 9/11, he brought a 237-page civil law suit against 156 defendants, including the NY Fire Department as being conspirators in the attacks on the World Trade Center. He served as former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania. He attempted to have three conservative Justices of the United States Supreme Court removed. Tell me how this is being led by a “right-wing” conspiracy again? You have to be NUTS to believe that!
Does anyone truly believe that this man has suddenly seen the light and joined a “right-wing” conspiracy of “teabagging nutcases” as MSNBC would have you believe? The facts show it’s just the reverse. This is a “left-wing” conspiracy that is taking money from unwitting people in an effort to promulgate and justify The Birthright Citizenship Club that the masses are ignorantly following.
Let’s look at who started the real conspiracy and go back to the video tape – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftlJVFBNyfo. It was Pete Williams of MSNBC. Look at the headline of the article if some are still too dense to get it:
DUO TAKE OBAMA BIRTH CHALLENGE TO COURT
“The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate.” – http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx
This doesn’t resolve anything regarding Donofrio’s suit. This is how MSNBC concludes that the two cases are about. This was not the evidence sought in Donofrio’s suit, it was the evidence Berg wanted. But this is exactly the way this article closes and leaves the impression that the birth certificate is the heart of the matter. The comments section suspiciously not only censors what they don’t want you to know, they start off with the fallacy that this is a design of the right-wing GOP, when Berg is a Democrat and Donofrio voted for Ron Paul as a third-party candidate unaffiliated with the GOP in the 2008 run. But they allowed that lie to dominate the comment section and it’s no coincidence. It’s also no coincidence they censored the others who tried to tell the truth.
Look at the testimony in the video of people who tried to post corrections to the article and their comments never appeared. Look at the fact that no retractions were made by MSNBC when called out for the “mistakes” contained in the piece by a well-known, head journalist, Pete Williams, who definitely knew better. Look at the fact that Philip Berg wasn’t the one to make the objections to that article. It was Leo Donofrio who got on the air to object and those objections were never televised so the masses could make an informed judgment. This was the beginning of the seeds of propaganda, deceit and corruption. Part of it began there and both Berg and MSNBC were well aware of it.
The left-wing are all in bed with each other for one common goal: Educate the public into believing that birthright citizenship, which is based on an oppressive feudal system, is a constitutionally sound and correct fact. This is the larger picture and the larger lie being sold to the American people who don’t know how to pick up a competent history book anymore.
These progressives will tell you that we need to update the Constitution to today’s standards, but even that’s a lie. The feudal system is older than the Constitution and that’s what they promote. It’s not progression, it’s regression and it strips citizens of their sovereignty and puts them back into being subjects, controlled by the government and where their children’s nationality, and thereby allegiance, is decided upon by the place of birth instead of being decided upon by the parents intended domicile for their minor children.
Instead of being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” by the consent of the parents, who are not “subject to any other foreign power” (Act of Congress – April 9, 1866), the correct interpretation and historical reasoning, the child is now a “subject of the jurisdiction he is born to”, parental rights and protection be damned; the government is in charge, the media-fed interpretation. The latter is nothing more than regressive feudalism and a complete departure from the founding principles and the independence gained through the Revolutionary War that parted with the last remnants of feudal society once and for all.
Instead of challenging what the far-left has done and facing them with facts, all the conservative talk-show hosts, who don’t know this history or the facts, run from it.
Well here it is in black and white. Arm yourselves with the truth and put the blame right back where it belongs: In the left-wing media’s lap, the Congress and the DNC – all of which have a lot of explaining to do.
This is a plain attack on the Constitution from the left-wing progressives who are ignoring the truth and trying to smear the wrong people in a very deceitful manner, especially when they had a hand in this via manipulative journalism. Neither the GOP or the Tea Party were behind initiating Berg’s crusade. But guaranteed, it will be the left-wing media who shows up at this supposed march on Washington to make sure they accuse the GOP as being responsible, again. These pre-calculated political chess moves are getting easier and easier to spot, even by us.
It’s time to set the record straight. Pick your side but know that if you show up in Washington D.C. to protest a piece of paper, you have nothing in common with the Founders of this country and it’s not patriotic to spit on their graves in such a way.
– UCONN
Undead Revolution
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and go out on a limb and say, Obama may not have been born here. It is possible. None of us know for sure either way and there’s always going to be that doubt because it’s never been investigated properly by any state or federal agency and Factcheck is not one of those.
I am glad to see that legislation is finally in the works where they’re not going to be so careless and protective next election. [insert raging liberal screeching here] But as was pointed out, that is the avenue where the corrections should be taken up, so the libs should shut up or risk giving themselves away completely. The noise I’m reading out there on the liberal blogs about Arizona’s recent legislation, protests way too much. For that matter, so does McCain about birthers, a subject he ran from during the 2008 campaign, now he uses as a weapon because it’s not against him. He thinks it’s vogue to trash them because the media dramatizes it. He obviously thinks it’ll make a convincing campaign device. Pretty childish for such an old man if you ask me, especially one who took an oath to uphold the Constitution. It won’t work. That one will backfire. But that’s another story..
Anyway.. That’s not to say that had we gone by the framers original intent, we never would have had this problem or be at this point. So I see the relevancy of your argument, John. The Constitution and intent of the framers should have taken top priority, especially where there was a doubt. The bottom line is that certain individuals thought more about covering for Obama than they did the founding fathers.
Berg sells a very convincing story to listen to him. He’ll go into HIS interpretation of law that only stresses that Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship which deals Obama a double-whammy when compared to other suits, but he never talks about what the founders said. He has a ton of law citations he really didn’t study that hard, but he comes up empty when it comes to history. So, that’s pretty shameful for someone alleging to know what he’s talking about and whose purpose is to “protect the Constitution”.
I also find it odd that the Secret Service hasn’t charged him with anything when everyone else involved in this thing has the wildest of stories to tell.
It’s even odder that someone like Sean Hannity still has that confinement thread called, “The One and Only Birth Certificate Thread” where he’s forcing people to take up any issue they have with regards to eligibility and discuss it only in a thread intended for birthers. So he needs to wake up and tell his dictator moderators to stop acting like the Obama administration he trashes every night on The Hannity Show. It’s hypocritical. People notice, more than he thinks they do.
My devil’s advocate point would be that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to march on Washington, if people going contested Berg’s point on birthright citizenship. The media definitely would not like that point brought up, so it could actually work in favor of history.
My contention is that people have a myriad of issues about this because Obama’s past is shrouded in mystery. I realize that it’s easy for them to pick up a WND slogan and run with it, but not all people are that stupid. There isn’t a show I’ve listened to with Berg on it where a caller didn’t point out the founder’s intent. The longer this goes on, the more doubt it casts on Obama and the progressive agenda.
I appreciate the danger of where you fear this is going and I’m sure the progressive, liberal media would love to see it happen that way. I suppose your warning is warranted. I just don’t think with the information out there, that people are going to let Obama slide even should he pull out a valid birth certificate from his back pocket tomorrow.
I’m betting that the 2012 election should be very interesting because I have no doubt, that despite the sneers and jeers going on about his eligibility, there isn’t a politician out there that wants this type of embarrassment again. He will be checked out. They will fix at least the documentation part of it and he’ll comply or forfeit his name on that state’s ballot. And if they had any sense for national security, they would heed the founders and fix the rest. But they won’t do anything about Obama’s status now, even if they knew he was born on Mars and his father was Bigfoot. The risk for public, economic and international chaos scares them far too much. It will never, ever happen and these cases will continue to be dismissed. 2012 will be his D-Day.
Just my thoughts.. good post to ponder on, John! They lied about global warming, so it would come as no surprise if they planned this one, too. 😉
~ Kristina
UCONN
Very true. And the birther issue is strong out there. A few days ago a listener called in to the Alex Jones radio show and basically complained that Jones was not covering the birth certificate conspiracy. I paraphrase: “You’re a truther, so why aren’t you a birther?” Jones answered that he isn’t convinced, because he would need evidence. But lo and behold, only very few days later he had Phil Berg on, although Berg had nothing new to reveal except for that preposterous birth certificate march on Washington… otherwise it was only the usual stuff about the COLB vs. BC conspiracy—of course still without any evidence, and all of a sudden Jones didn’t care about that anymore—, the allegation that Obama is an illegal alien by virtue of Indonesian adoption, while disregarding Perkins v. Elg in this respect.
But then they had an educated caller who brought up the real natural born citizen issue, Obama’s British subjecthood, and Berg simply said that it has been dealt with by a few attorneys (read: a minority of attorneys), and he doesn’t believe it’s relevant. He then immediately tried to distract the listeners by bringing up S.A. Dunham’s age and alleged that (with Obama being born abroad) she would have been too young for Obama to become a natural born citizen, thereby conflating two completely unrelated issues and insinuating that foreign-born US citizens are natural born if one parent is a US citizen of the right age etc. And Alex Jones screamed at the top of lungs: “We got him there.” No need to dig any further. Yeah, right. Makes me wonder: Either Alex Jones’ ratings have dropped and he must now kowtow to every deranged caller’s wishes, or he is part of the whole birthright citizenship shenanigan. Judging from his reaction to Berg, the latter is more probable: Alex Jones is feeding the smokescreen.
In any case, Berg is not only about ius soli. Of course he wants everyone to believe that you can be a natural born US citizen, if you’re born in the US, no matter who your parents are, but also if you’re born abroad of at least one US citizen parent who meets the necessary requirements. This stuff really makes me angry. And I basically hear the same from a couple of friends, no matter if they think Obama is eligible or ineligible: They only want to discuss the birth certificate, and as soon I want to focus on his status as a British subject, they don’t answer, or distract or change the subject, which shows me that it’s a very serious matter. They just want to forget about it. Berg, the MSM and all the others have done a “splendid” job in this respect.
Hi Joss,
Whatever happened to his case that was under seal?.. “can’t talk about it.. just hit that paypal button, kthnxbai” routine? I notice he’s still asking for money. Must be a racket! 😉
Just wondering..
~ Kristina
UCONN
This is too trusting of an idea. You’re assuming that the MSM would fairly interview all sides and put some sort of focus on the faulty birthright citizenship acceptance out there and prove it wrong via historical facts.
It will never happen, Kris. The objective the MSM wants is to have people believe that birthright citizenship is the law of the land.
Who do you think is going to set the record straight? Philip Berg? Don’t hold your breath.
– John –
Undead Revolution
Another one from Dr. John Eastman, Dean of Chapman University School of Law, on October 30, 2007. Dr. Eastman is a constitutional law professor and scholar.
It should be pointed out that Zap came to the same conclusion as Dr. Eastman regarding Wong Kim Ark before even knowing about this video. It was done purely through research of their own using the original documentation we found from that period. Putting those together, it comes up with the same math and that’s more interesting than just hearing it from Eastman’s mouth. It means it can be proven by more than one professor’s study.
So it’s no coincidence that it winds up at the same result as UCONN’s Professors and Hilldale’s Professors. It just happens to be the factual truth of the whole thing.
The danger now is that this broad-brushed faulty understanding of WKA is being shoved down America’s throat to people who weren’t taught their history very well. The left is playing this ignorance up and using it to their advantage. Not only is it the law they want see changed through this drama of the “birther” label, but they are trashing this Constitution by attempting to demonize anyone who provides the factual truth of the Founders themselves.
This is a tactic. A very lame one, but it’s still a tactic and it originated by the left. We believe Philip Berg was the vessel they used initially to put attention to the farce against the Constitution, especially Article II and the 14th Amendment. Now that they’ve succeeded in drawing in people from other parties, what do they do? Exactly what we thought they would. Label it a “right-wing GOP birther” craze when it was a “left-wing DNC sponsored propaganda” that started it. The left knows exactly where they want to take this and it’s all nothing but an attempt to circumvent the Constitution in the long run. They couldn’t do it with an amendment, so they resort to this.
Once people of other convictions understand this truth, the better off they will be and not be led by what the left has done.
RedState goes about it the wrong way. He’s not only incorrect about WKA, he’s not undoing the damage the left has caused with a constructive attitude towards helping members of his own party. You can’t help the far-left, but you can help conservatives understand what they’ve been led into.
– John –
Undead Revolution
I just discovered that Eastman worked with the Chicago law firm of Kirkland and Ellis. Ring any bells? Remember Sarah Herlihy?
Yup, sure do. Read this yet?
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/12/was-sarah-herlihy-plant.html
“Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.
“In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital As sociation’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama
“So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of “If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”
This whole demonizing “birther” label was a trap set up a long time ago and we think yes, Berg was part of it. Now that they’ve led several conservative-folk down the road they paved, they’re going to try to smear them. But the underlying aim is to destroy the Constitution. There was always a bigger objective to what they’re doing now.
– John –
Undead Revolution
P.S. – Your request for historical research should be in the mail later on today. I didn’t forget about you.
It looks like Eastman was asked last October about his views on the Obama natural born issue–
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/09/legal-expert-obama-birth-suit-likely-dismissed/23333/
It sounds like he forgot everything he wrote about citizenship, because he said he had “insufficient information” about the claims on Obama’s “birthplace”. And that it was a “political question.”
So he has remained silent. And now he is running for California Attorney General, as a Republican.
Not really the conclusion I would draw from those statements.
Since this was my forfeit for awhile, I’ll respond to this one.
The “insufficient information” he refers to that can be decided upon by Congress would probably fall into the category that Donofrio refused to discuss on his blog and that Eastman doesn’t go into detail about either. Consider what the law states about citizenship to children born of illegitimate marriages and there’s your answer. Obama, Sr. was a polygamist and was married at the same time he married Ann Dunham, which is of course an unlawful practice in this country and would make the secondary marriage null and void. In the event of an illegitimate child, per U.S. law, the child takes the citizenship of the mother.
This was brought up in numerous discussions in both groups. Whether people want to understand that principle in law is irrelevant. It happens to be a fact and a loophole I personally wouldn’t doubt that Obama would fall back on if an investigation by Congress were held.
The more important point, is that birthright citizenship is not the law of this land. It never was. Yet the fact that they don’t portray Obama as an illegitimate child makes it a birthright citizenship issue that the Democrats are hoping to project as a constitutionally sound doctrine and it’s simply not. This is where the trap gets set for conservatives – those that are too stupid to see what they are getting into by following Philip Berg, lining his pockets and whereby the Democrats then just use that as their chance to smear the conservatives in the end. But make no mistake, this is the left’s baby – ALL OF IT.
I don’t see Eastman changing that opinion in his statements or forgetting he made them. He’s much smarter than that. Even our own Professors have grappled with the question of illegitimacy in a case like this. Barack Obama could skate through it after all is said and done using that premise. It’s scandalous, but it works for him.
Congress had the chance to investigate Obama when they investigated McCain and they didn’t do it. Now you see why, too. It’s a Pandora’s Box they’d rather not open. What Congress did not do was pass a bill that gave Obama what he co-sponsored, Bill #S. 2678 in the 110th Congress (see Zapem’s blog). That is what they were really after. The Constitution remains intact despite the McCaskill-sponsored bill that failed to pass.
The reason why lawyers working on these cases won’t bring up this point is because it doesn’t work for their arguments. Lawyers aren’t keen on bringing up points that don’t help their cases. But if it settles the issue of facts against this birthright citizenship myth, they should.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
UCONN
Obama is an attorney. In Obama’s statements on his campaign website and in his book–he told voters his mother was married to a Kenyan, and he claimed him as his father. He didn’t say she wanted to be married to him but couldn’t legally, etc. He said she was. He didn’t say that Obama Sr. might be his father. He said he was. Did he lie? Why would he lie, as a Constitutional law professor, knowing full well the controversy over birthright citizenship? Why not proclaim the marriage as illegitimate sooner? Because they couldn’t totally rewrite history. The book had already been published. He had bragged to too many people that he was a “citizen of the world.” He was too cool, but it was too late.
You quoted Hillsdale College yourself and they are correct, “Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law..“ Translation: The only natural rights are those given by God. The only citizenship rights are those provided by law. Obama can think whatever he wants. He can say whatever he wants or even believes. It is the law that matters – and every case law must be read in the context of the circumstances presented to it. When read in context, birthright citizenship doesn’t exist, but Obama and his liberal friends never want to read anything in context. This is a man who calls himself a “citizen of the world”, which historically, is a term for a person who is attached to no country. So take it from the source here. He’s not too bright. He may even be delusional. But he is something per the law, not per his own words. Understand?
Gibbs has referred to the online birth certificate. Divorce papers have been found. Whether or not the marriage was legitimate is beside the point.
It’s very much the point if we’re a nation of laws and we are. It doesn’t matter if divorce papers were found. If the marriage was a farce and illegal to boot, then it is what it is – null and void in the eyes of the LAW. I’m not saying it definitely is. I’m not Congress and I doubt they’ll be having hearings about this any day soon, especially when the relatives in question are in Kenya and don’t speak the language. I’m saying this is the law and is also the law in Hawaii. I checked.
What Obama, his administration, and the DNC told voters—that is very much the point. If these claims were lies, is the offense impeachable? Either way, whether the Kenyan citizenship was presented as “the story” or really is fact, he was not eligible. They cannot go back now and change their minds. The DNC, based on the information they gave the public in the campaign, presented an ineligible candidate. According to the Constitution. Period.
I don’t think Obama is going to be impeached based on the lies his parents may or may not have told him or others in an effort to get married, no. The only thing Obama’s website has said is that he held dual-citizenship at the time of his birth. Again, it boils down to the law as to what he really is. It doesn’t matter what he thinks. This is a republic – a nation of laws.
Everyone gets caught up in the “But he said it!” argument. What he said isn’t the law. The law determines whether what he said or didn’t say is legal or not.
Did Eastman change his mind?
No.
If not, why does he have to be so cryptic?
I don’t see any retractions made from what he said in that video or at the Heritage Foundation’s website.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a Constitutional expert to figure out that if a person had a questionable type of citizen to start with, which Eastman has spent countless hours explaining before Obama was center stage, that they certainly wouldn’t be “natural born.” We all understand that Congress, even if they now address the problems with birthright citizenship, cannot retroactively take it away. But neither can they grant someone natural born citizenship if they didn’t have it when they were born.
I have no idea how Congress would handle the problem, but they should start doing their jobs and address it before the common law becomes something the Constitution never intended and they wind up losing the country to foreign influence just as the Founders warned.
Chronologically–Eastman teaches how Birthright and Dual Citizenship are unconstitutional. Eastman has ties to Kirkland Ellis in Chicago. A Congressional hearing is held in 2005, at which all Representatives and expert witnesses present agree with Eastman. Congress does nothing. Instead of continuing to argue along with Eastman that birthright and dual citizenship need to be eliminated, Kirkland associate publishes paper in 2006 arguing why the natural born clause needs to be eliminated. Obama announces his run for the Presidency in 2007. Kirkland supports Obama. Eastman, and every other witness at the hearing have a severe case of Alzheimer’s.
Dual-citizenship is the result you get when two separate country’s laws collide. The remedy for this is in International Law reconciliations. In the absence of this reconciliation, a conflict is still present. The danger in voting one into office is the fact that during war-time, another country can claim that individual as their own. When a naturalized citizen must disavow all former allegiances and swear sole allegiance to this country and still not be able to run for President, a dual-citizen with conflicting allegiances certainly doesn’t have a prayer. That’s even IF he’s a dual-citizen after all. What the Obama website attempted to do was say that when he became of age, he chose this country as his choice. It was a stupid move on their part considering the laws we already had in place for illegitimate children. Obama claims that at birth he was something else per his own website’s admission. I’m saying it still doesn’t matter what Obama claims or says. What matters is what the law determines he is. Eastman is saying let Congress resolve it, and they can, but everyone knows they won’t.
This is the conspiracy.
I don’t think I see enough evidence to say that Eastman has fallen on his sword just yet. I don’t see any retractions from his initial statements on this matter. Notice he is very careful about making conclusions regarding the law based on what Obama has claimed or didn’t claim. That’s because Obama’s claims don’t matter one way or the other. It’s the determination of facts based on the law that do and therein lies your difference.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
UCONN
Adam, I love your spirit.
Let’s take the country back, along with the Constitution.
The Revolution is definitely Undead.
If Obama Sr’s marriage to Dunham was illegitimate, you say that Obama Jr., then, as an illegitimate, has real US citizenship (not the practiced but unconstitutional type of “birthright” citizenship) under Hawaii state law. So states have the right, in these cases, to define citizenship under the Constitution? While they can’t say that birthright citizenship is Constitutional, they can say that if a US citizen has an illegitimate child, the child is a US citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of the other parent? Do states have the right to define or bestow “natural born” citizenship? In a specific case, if the circumstances of the illegitimate birth were known—that the father was a non-US citizen—can the state law trump the meaning of Article 2?
And do Great Britain’s laws grant citizenship to the illegitimate children of its citizens born abroad? Would the illegitimate marriage cause Obama Jr. not to be a dual citizen?
If it came down the road that Obama Sr. was not really Obama’s father, I would imagine that would (or should) cause other problems for Obama outside of NBC eligibility. Like lying, and the lack of vetting by the DNC.
The “Birthers” who truly understand the Constitutional NBC issue, and want to see the long-form certificate, are correct, then, in that it probably contains the details necessary to determine this case?
The Constitution states who is eligible to run for president of the United States under Article II. History defines what that means. Hawaii doesn’t interpret the Constitution, or say emphatically who complies with it. That domain is in the United States Supreme Court. Congress has the ability to formally investigate and hold hearings, not Hawaii. States conform to a federal Constitution by being a party to the Union.
In recent news, Hawaii is claiming they never signed on as a formal, willing participant of the Union and use Clinton’s apology to them as proof. The media laughed at it, but if you want to throw in some more drama, there you go.
It still doesn’t change what the founders had to say about citizenship. They seem to be the only rational, intelligent source out there. Everything else is a smoke-screen desgined to detract and defame as we see with the trashing of this or that person’s suspicions or non-suspicions. Those people fell right into the trap laid for them.
The “birthers” are not correct because they use the Constitution to hide behind the fallacy that “birthright citizenship” happens to anyone born in this country because, as they claim, soil gives them that birthright. History says it does not. Because they actually believe it anyway, they must resort to putting Obama’s place of birth outside the United States. They boxed themselves in. Since they can’t prove those suspicions, they have been labeled “conspiracy theorists”. No one from either the “birther” side or the “anti-birther” side can seem to get their heads around anything else. Blinding tunnel-vision that really doesn’t do anything to settle the bigger arguments that Town-Halls are protesting against right now, let alone going back to the historical documents that easily tell everyone what a natural-born citizen is and more importantly, what an American is.
Maybe we should just go back to doing oaths and holding people accountable for those pledges, because communists actually think they’re entitled to change Americanism, too. It’s becoming an anything goes nation of illiterates. It’s getting to the point where everyone is missing the big picture and focusing on criteria instead of why that criteria was set down in texts and speeches in the first place.
Adam –
UCONN
Hi Adam, I have two or three questions. Please correct me if I’m wrong, because this is completely new territory for me. 🙂 You state that
I agree. This is their agenda. (See also below.) But on the other hand the legal truth with regard to Obama appears to lie here:
This, I argue, would then make Obama a natural born citizen—under the possible assumption that he was born in Hawaii—, because as an illegitimate child following only his mother, he would then never have held any foreign allegiance at birth, neither to Kenya nor to the United Kingdom as a British subject. So it would mean that Barack Obama is in fact eligible for President.
But is this legally true? From the Edmunds Act it is clear that the second marriage has to occur under exclusive US jurisdiction. As to the first marriage the law only states generally that the person “has a husband or wife living”—it does not say “living in the US”. To me this means that to a US court it is irrelevant where in the world and under which jurisdiction the first marriage was legally sealed. Therefore this would make Obama an illegitimate child and a sole US citizen (i.e. natural born).
But was (a) the second marriage of his father in the US and/or (b) his first Kenyan marriage legally valid under British law?
(a) According to Wikipedia, polygamy is illegal in the UK. As for other territories (e.g. the British Kenya colony or any other country) it is only recognized if the country where the second marriage takes place allows polygamy of its residents. Since polygamy is illegal in the US, the second marriage of Obama Sr. to S.A. Dunham would also be illegal under British law. Even if for some reason British law would recognize the marriage, it would have no effect in terms of British citizenship. This would mean that Obama is an illegitimate child and therefore without foreign (non-US) allegiance, ergo eligible.
(b) So the only thing that would make Obama ineligible is an invalidness of Obama Sr.’s first marriage in Kenya. We know that this marriage was the result of a tribal ceremony, which in itself does not say if it was legally valid under British law. (Ceremonial marriages have no legal bearing.) Do we know if there was a civil marriage or some form of marriage registration with the colonial authorities? Or alternatively, would Obama Sr.’s first marriage have been recognized by UKC authorities as something of a “common law marriage”? I must admit that I don’t know the answers to these question, but it seems that Obama’s eligibility eventually depends on the legal status of his father’s first marriage under British jurisdiction.
So, just for the sake of the argument, if that first marriage was valid and Obama therefore eligible due to him being an illegitimate child with only US citizenship at birth, it would mean:
(1) that any challenge to Obama’s eligibility based on the assumption of foreign allegiance at birth would fail, including of course a Quo Warranto in the DC District Court, and
(2) that the Washington elite not only created the birth-certificate/foreign-birth smokescreen, but has (more importantly) deliberately constructed this issue of Obama’s dual citizenship (which in reality he would never have possessed) to create a precedent for Presidential eligibility derived from ius soli alone.
I know that this is apparently their agenda—what else can they do? All the attempts at amending the Constitution have failed—, but does (2) even make sense? If Obama was really an illegitimate child (and therefore eligibile because natural born), his presidency would in fact not be a valid legal precedent for ius soli “birthright citizens”. So it’s only about changing the mindset? What would that accomplish if the laws are still what they used to be?
You may also want to read this review by Eastman that was hosted by the Heritage Foundation, who is also not a proponent of this birthright citizenship garbage. Heritage knows the subject very well. It’s the rest of America that needs to study it.
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm
Yes, they do.
More Heritage Foundation articles:
Edwin Meese and Dr. Matthew Spalding:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2034.cfm
Dr. Edward Erler:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm
The 2005 Congressional Hearing, “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Soveriegnty:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju23690.000/hju23690_0.htm
“Obama, Sr. was a polygamist and was married at the same time he married Ann Dunham, which is of course an unlawful practice in this country and would make the secondary marriage null and void. In the event of an illegitimate child, per U.S. law, the child takes the citizenship of the mother.”
Concerning the above, the citizenship of the mother will not fly either since that is in the the 14th Amendment, and that Amendment does not even speak of “natural born Citizen”. The words are not even there, but people will cite it as applicable.
Not sure I follow you here. I’m not talking about the 14th Amendment. I’m talking about how the law would determine his status at birth and all considerations of law would have to apply.
Obama Sr. being a polygamist does not fly either since that would give Obama foreign citizenship at birth.
I’m not going to argue with you here, but that made no sense to me.
The founders and framers never intended for a President to have dual-citizenship.
Correct. It still doesn’t make him one because his website said he is. It’s a matter for the law to determine what he is and that’s why Eastman defers to Congress to settle it.
Any argument that Obama would have goes to the 14th Amendment, and the founders and framers never contemplated the 14th Amendment for natural born Citizen.
They contemplated citizenship at the time of the Declaration of Independence, shaped it from the revolutionary war experience and solidified it with a Constitution. The history is there as to what the term means. It is not ambiguous as the left likes to run around telling people that don’t know any better. The 14th Amendment has a history as well. It was to give blacks their citizenship. If it were meant to dissolve Article II, they would have said so at the time they drafted it.
I have followed Donofrio’s work and I think he has shot a straight arrow.
Concerning Obama status as a natural born Citizen, Obama is a dead man walking and he knows it!
Exactly why Berg wants you to chase a birth certificate around. So that when Obama shows it, everyone will bestow upon him his “birthright citizenship” entitlement that doesn’t exist.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
To Adam:
I mistakenly referenced the 14th Amendment whereas I should have given in my response US CODE, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Section 1401. The
birthers, (It is only the birth certificate that matters!) and others have a field day in this Section confusing everyone. People try to fit the natural born Citizen into Section 1401 and vice versa and it connot be done as far as I know. Now, I must admit that UR is not confused.
Donofrio has said that being a natural born Citizen is a “circumstance of birth”, and there is no circumstance of Obama’s birth that arises to the requirement and the occasion.
Is the UR going to publish any more articles? Thanks for your excellent research. I have always been rather bored with the birth certificate.
On a personal note, my adopted family has Stamford, Connecticut roots through the Lounsbury family. Two Connecticut governors Edward and Phineas had the last name of Lounsbury.
Hugh
Frankfort, Kentucky
I did a paper on US Code. Think of it as a variable that can be changed. The Code has been changed, many times. It’s the Constitution that is the supreme law and trumps all other laws when there’s a controversy – and there have been several controversies that have never been challenged in the Code as it relates to the Constitution. The US Code cannot redefine Article II when we can prove what Article II means historically. Besides, that section in the Fourteenth Amendment that people cling to also retains the same disclaimer in its documented debates that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had, which is the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment – “subject to any other foreign power” that seems to always be forgotten. Nevermind the plethora of case law that preceded the notion of a “birthright citizenship” fallacy. In those opinions, there is much history for the reasoning behind Article II that cannot be denied.
Congress has the right to make a uniform rule of naturalization under the Constitution. It does not have the right to redefine Article II with Codes. If they want the Constitution changed, it’s called an Amendment, not stuff like this:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Article II is not ambiguous. We have found enough evidence to claim it’s just the opposite. It’s just a matter of when we get the green light to go ahead and publish it. Lots of politics going on right now. Lots of finding original copies of things, where they are located, what disappeared from the Library of Congress but someone found in a reading room they weren’t supposed to. All kinds of crazy things happening here – and all kinds of crazy people who don’t like us being so nosy. Too late.
Adam –
UCONN
At this point, it’s assumed that Obama’s parent’s were legally married in HI.
The key word is “assumed” here.
There is a problem with that though, as Obama Sr. was already married to a woman in Kenya. If Sr. did marry SADO in HI, then it would have been either a polygamous marriage (assuming SADO knew Sr. was already married), or a bigamous marriage (assuming she didn’t know).
It really wouldn’t matter if she knew or didn’t know, the law in Hawaii is what it is – and it’s against the law with a caveat that states any misrepresentation of facts could lead to the marriage document being declared null and void. Not that it’s going to happen, but we did read up on it for whatever it’s worth. We realize it’s a touchy subject, but if the left is going to rip apart every assumed negative characterization of the founders they can make up, they can start with the dirt in their own closets.
Undoubtedly, a bigamous marriage would be unlawful and therefore he would not have inherited British citizenship from his father.
Again, it is the law that determines what Obama is, not what he would claim he is. That was really our point in bringing it up.
However, was a polygamous marriage unlawful in 1961 Hawaii?
Yes.
I haven’t been able to confirm that one way or the other. If it was lawful, then the 1948 BNA would apply to Obama as his father would have been legally married to his mother.
That’s where an investigation from the Congress comes in. To make that determination.
If Obama’s parents were not legally married (because his father was already married at the time), then Obama’s place of birth becomes more important. If born in HI to (essentially) an unwed citizen mother, the courts would undoubtedly find him to be a Natural Born Citizen.
I think it goes to what President Washington said – that connections to the country, family, kin and allegiance are only preliminary rules we can set in place to reassure us that fidelity to this country is maintained, but it’s not necessarily a guarantee of fidelity. Every time we look at candidates, historical and current, these attributes are always included – i.e., “Mr. _____ is the son of a farmer who settled here in ____, served in ____ War”. The mother and siblings are calculated with the same scrutiny – every single time. If the best they can say about Obama is that he’s a bastard from a completely dysfunctional family who ran to marxist mentors after experimenting with drugs and trying to find himself, then became a radical bent on “transforming the United States of America”, which he apologizes for profusely and which his wife can’t seem to be proud of until he came to power and now holds a torch against fat people, in complete opposition to the founding principles, then that is more important to what voters need to know than a theory that he may not even have been born here. The key President Washington gave us was studying their character and giving us a few starter rules to go by. I think it’s safe to say that any of the founders would find Obama as completely failing any preliminary test despite the clearance the rest of the media and Congress give him today.
We can’t impress this point enough. We have plenty of eligible people living in this country and sitting in Congress right now who don’t fit the mold the founders used as a safeguard for fidelity to this country – socialism is running rampant. So it comes as no surprise they protect him and refuse to discuss President Washington’s warnings and rip out Ramsay from the history books.
The real question is where do those people fit into the picture of Americanism and what it really stands for? The path to true citizenship lies in the adherence to the founding principles, because we are of one mind with liberty and freedom and not of the sort that seeks to do away with that by imposing the dictates of another king. Sovereign citizens don’t desire subjugation and power over them that lead to stripping people of their freedom and a return to a suffocating and demoralizing age of feudalism. They call it “progressive”. We call it “regressive”, because it’s all been done before and it failed – miserably.
This may be getting long-winded, but it needs to be said – Americans are not subjects. That was the first lie told on the internet and we refuted it factually. Again, look to Dr. David Ramsay and see the founding principles and ask why this man’s writings are never taught in today’s school system? There’s a reason they don’t want it taught – there’s a reason the former lie was told – because it outlines exactly what Americans are supposed to be in their hearts and it’s at odds with socialism and monarchies. Some people don’t like what true Americans stand for and never had this idea of Americanism in their heart. They stand for tyranny and power and it’s older than the Revolution. People tend to give that power to anyone who promises them this or that material thing instead of relying on themselves and the freedom they enjoy to make it possible. What they don’t understand is that once you give freedom away in return for the promises made by any one power, who is sure to make that promise sound alluring – even just, that same power can just as easily take away the thing promised. The hard-cold lesson is to never relinquish power to the government, prone to lying in the first place to get the power they need, or learn the lessons of another bloody Revolution again so you can see it doesn’t work. What would the founders say? They’d say, “I told ya so”. This is the truer essence of what we write about and study. No one has “been there, done that” before and successfully in any form of government, except for the founders. Our country is totally unique in that.
So when people argue over this birth thing, either for or against, it’s annoying because it’s very narrow-minded, legalistic and really doesn’t answer what Americanism is all about. For us, it is about what citizenship really MEANS that’s the heart of the problem here.
Ramsay said, Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others.
He’s saying that citizens don’t look to the master for their “rights”. Subjects do that. Citizens are higher than that of nobleman because they contain in their own right, “original sovereignty” that cannot look to anyone else except themselves for answers. If they do look to a “master” (i.e., government) for their rights, they become subjects. When posed as a question such as that, what would the people demand? Americans would demand nothing less than their sovereignty and tell government to butt out, regardless of the carrot on the stick they’re dangling to the people. Governments have long used the excuse as we see them repeating now and as we saw congressman Sherman do just the other day, “If we do nothing, the problem still exists.” Well, you know what? Problems have always existed. That’s no excuse to lung at a power grab and change the sovereignty of the citizens because “government” can point to a problem that could use fixing. Any dictator can do that. The difference is, the United States of America is not a dictatorship and Sherman and the rest of them have no business using problems as their excuse to take over. It’s a trap.
Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
This is another warning. When the people relinquish their sovereignty to the government in exchange for material things they stupidly claim as their “right”, they have made themselves a master and have become subject to it, rather than collectively being responsible to themselves as co-equals who submit to no master (except God, unless you’re an atheist) and solve problems without giving government total power over them.
When a party comes into power by lying to people, and proceeds to strip citizens of their sovereignty – owning banks, owning industries, incurring massive debts held by communist countries, transferring your very health decisions to the hands of Washington bureaucrats, scoffing up land from the people, mirandizing terrorists and our favorite, promoting a police state with a civilian national security force that’s “just as strong, just as powerful as the military”, imposed and implemented as Big Brother at the government’s pleasure, you can bet your dwindling dollar it isn’t an American ideal or a founding principle. All these things are the edicts of a master that eradicates citizens into being subjects and sets himself up as a king among fools.
We understand that all these things put a question in the minds of Americans, starting with Obama’s citizenship, which he has the audacity of believing no one should question. It would be stupid not to question where such an idealogue with a marxist pandering came from. It’s normal, but what is more stupid is watching the masses attack each other over where the actual problem lies. On the one hand, you have Berg’s conspiracy theory that would make Obama “American” if only he would show his birth certificate. On the other hand, you have the “birthright citizenship club” that demands that everyone born in the U.S. is entitled to be president, PERIOD! – and implies that being so means you can do whatever you want to the people’s sovereignty. NOT SO! In the end, only one thing matters and one thing only: Is Obama truly American in thought, word and deed? Are those who are in Congress right now the same and abiding by the founding principles? If not, they should all be impeached, if not held for treason. And since they love tying impeachment and recall proceedings up in red tape, as we see being done in New Jersey right now with Senator Menendez claiming no one can recall his sorry, corrupt ass, they wonder why the people are marching against them instead.
The good news is, the truth has come out, with or without his stupid birth certificate. There is something about Obama that is more sinister than merely where he was born. He rejects Americanism. Define what American sovereignty is and that is all the proof you need. Tell your congress men and women that there is no excuse they can think or problem they can tug at America’s heartstrings with, that justifies turning this country into a nanny-state of socialism – because that’s exactly what they are doing.
Adam –
UCONN
I’ll have to answer the rest later. I have documentation on just about all of it. Our next big group meeting is next week, so we’ll see what happens then.
Best I can tell you regarding continuing the blog is that it will go up, we just don’t know when we’re going to get the approval. Rest assured, there are good reasons for not doing so right now. Reasons we didn’t know about when we started up.
Adam –
UCONN
UNCONN Ladies & Gentlemen:
Please refrain from expressing your political views. While many of your readers will emphathize with your strong words against Obama, the people we most need to reach will be turned off by this.
Your excellent research has provided an extremely stong basis for the Founders’ defintion of Natural Born Citizen. This is the only topic, in my humble opinion, that you should be addressing. To delve into politics of any sort will only undermine the solid research you have done, which I have deeply admired from the onset. (My first post here was the fifth one made at your site.)
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Respectfully yours,
Robare
We have literally hundreds of people who share in this study in our group, from young to old. Adam isn’t the only opinion and the rest are welcome to post their own if they wish to do so. They all have the same access codes. The only thing that we collectively control is what goes out on the main page. We also agreed that comments should be limited to what’s on the blog, meaning no spam or off-topic noise so we don’t waste people’s time. We can’t possibly control how the research is going to be digested from everyone in this large group, nor would we want to for ourselves or anyone who wants to read it. Everyone, you, me and every American is going to come away with something someone else didn’t contemplate. If that offends someone, let them counter it with their own voice but we’re not going to stifle their right to free speech. This is a discussion area, meant for everyone.
The Revolution itself was a political view. Our entire political character was changed from subjects to citizens. Understanding the difference between the two is essential in fundamentally understanding where and what we came from and where we’re going tomorrow. May I ask how we’re supposed to analyze the basics if we refrain from applying the texts to what’s happening now? Weren’t the Founders doing exactly that and putting out thousands of words, all laced with a variety of thoughts, before they decided on a plan of action themselves?
If you disagree with something Adam said, feel free to counter argue his position. He doesn’t speak for the group as a whole. Every comment posted is their own take on things, just as yours are your own. He just happens to be one hell of a good researcher, but he’s also very analytical with anything you give him to do. One thing you can always expect from him, is an answer. A very longgggg answer. heh
– Steve
Undead Revolution
Come on, Splooge. He’s not half as loud as Glenn Beck. He can’t even be compared to that ditz Meghan McCain who claims to speak for all of our generation, either.
Politically speaking, I like to judge our commentary on whether George W. would smack us upside the head or not. As long as he would approve, it’s all good.
I mean, I realize our generation doesn’t speak the same politically correct language some adults would expect, but what do they want? They say we’re not involved. I disagree. We’re engaged!
Samantha ~~
Proud member of the Undead Revolution
Research Area: Historical Literature read in the early American home.
UCONN
Hope I didn’t scare anyone with that. :O
I do not get where all this marriage stuff has to do with anything. Common law is clear that citizenship at birth follows the father. It says nothing requiring the father to be married to the mother whether legal or not. The idea that if the marriage was not legal would them make him natural born if born in HI is just crazy. His father is his father, period. His citizenship follows that of his father, period. Marriage has nothing to do with it.
Is their some British law written that specifically states if a British subject fathers a child to an unwed mother of a foreign country then his child has no citizenship rights to the father’s country if his child was born on foreign soil?
What I see is a person that would have no natural born status from any country, but merely a citizenship status in dual countries under natural common law and under codified law in the U.S..
If his father was Obama Sr., he is a British subject at birth according to natural common law and a citizen of the U.S. by codified law “assuming” he was in fact born in HI. If he was in fact born in Kenya then he has no legal citizenship in the U.S. at all as his mother was not old enough to pass citizenship to her son at the time of his birth.
So where does this legally married stuff come in that would trump common law citizenship that clearly states citizenship follows that of the father? It said nothing about having to be legally married!
First, we had to consider if legitimacy was even found in history at the start of the new nation where they used it to determine nationality, following prior precedents or not. We find it does. Justice Joseph Story uses it to make his interpretations with regard to the Constitution and International Law. In Conflict of Laws, he points this out:
“If he is an illegitimate child, he follows the domicil of his mother. Ejus, qui justum patrem non habet, prima ‘origo a matre.”1
1 Dig. Lib. 50, tit. 1, 1.9.
And then again with these original references of which subsequent American case law repeats excessively:
“To what nation a person belongs is by the law of nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it, that of the father where the children are lawful and where they are not, that of the mother, without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon since nationality is in its essence dependent on descent.”2
2 Bar’s International Law, Sec. 31. To the same effect are Vattel on the Law of Nations, section 212, Savigny on International Law, Sec. 351.
So, we had to take a look at it, not because we wanted to provide a cover for Obama, but because we’re after the truth and that truth does reside in the founding texts and we can’t just ignore that. We understand that it wouldn’t be useful to people whose sole objective is to make their legal points, but we’re not of that crowd. We look at everything and decide if it has a historical basis or not.
Then we went to a group of attorneys and asked about the current laws in Hawaii and Kenya. We didn’t do this research so we’ll just print the exact answer we got from them in reply to your comment.
– Steve
UCONN
Here is the answer we received:
“Breaking apart the message into segments:
‘I do not get where all this marriage stuff has to do with anything.
Common law is clear that citizenship at birth follows the father. It
says nothing requiring the father to be married to the mother whether
legal or not. The idea that if the marriage was not legal would them
make him natural born if born in HI is just crazy. His father is his
father, period. His citizenship follows that of his father, period.
Marriage has nothing to do with it.’
A legitimate marriage has everything to do with it …
1) It has everything to do with it under the BNA 1948 insofar as the U.K. ‘s limitation on that kingdom’s ability to “claim” the offspring for citizenship vis-a-vis their carve-out provisions denying citizenship to illegitimate children:
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
Part III Supplemental. Legitimated children.
23.—(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.
(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.
2) It has everything to do with it under longstanding principles in Hawaii both in 1961 and the present day which find Hawaii refusing to allow “common law marriages” to arise between couples living in Hawaii. The most that Hawaii will do is to acknowledge common law marriages created in other jurisdictions (other states of the U.S. or abroad) where the other jurisdictions themselves allow for it.
http://www.hawaiielderlaw.com/estate-planning/common-law-marriage.html
That posture likely would have found Hawaii “recognizing” the tribal customary marriage of Obama Sr. as being of a common law flavor and hence making him ineligible to be married to Stanley Ann Dunham. Hence, whatever “ceremony” allegedly took place over on another island — and for which a filed marriage license still hasn’t been found despite divorce papers providing a date and place — would have been rendered null, void and of no effect.
Is their some British law written that specifically states if a
British subject fathers a child to an unwed mother of a foreign country
then his child has no citizenship rights to the father’s country if his
child was born on foreign soil?
See above, provisions of BNA 1948
‘What I see is a person that would have no natural born status from
any country, but merely a citizenship status in dual countries under
natural common law and under codified law in the U.S..
If his father was Obama Sr., he is a British subject at birth
according to natural common law and a citizen of the U.S. by codified
law “assuming” he was in fact born in HI. If he was in fact born in
Kenya then he has no legal citizenship in the U.S. at all as his mother
was not old enough to pass citizenship to her son at the time of his
birth.
So where does this legally married stuff come in that would trump
common law citizenship that clearly states citizenship follows that of
the father? It said nothing about having to be legally married!’
A brief overview of “customary” versus “statutory” marriages in Kenya can be gotten from this source:
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1144012150&cid=459
The situation in that former British colony found courts recognizing tribal or “customary” marriages in actually decided cases brought before them, even though there was no formal recognition under the statutory scheme of things which had adopted, under British rule, a Western outlook about the matter, requiring monogamy. A person who undertook a customary marriage could go on to have as many wives as “tribal” or “custom” might allow BUT, if he sought to marry in a “statutory” manner, he had to seek a divorce from his “customary” wives — or otherwise, he’d be found guilty of the crime of bigamy. One could not go from one form to the other interchangeably. It was “either” “or”. An “alleged” marriage in Hawaii would have been regarded as a form that was akin to a “statutory marriage” in Kenya and, if Obama Sr. had brought back his “statutory bride” to live in Kenya, and requested that their marriage be recognized, he’d have had potential exposure to bigamy prosecution.
And if anyone wants a cherry to plop on the ice cream sundae, here is a decision from 2007 where a guy born to a Mexican mother and an American father who weren’t married to each other got denied his application for U.S. citizenship after the examination of all the facts disclosed that the American father ALREADY had a wife from whom he never sought a divorce between 1958 and 2001, when that first wife died. Therefore, his son born out of a co-habitation couldn’t claim citizenship by virtue of a “common law marriage” because the American father wasn’t free to enter into a c.l.m. unless he got a divorce from the first wife. http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2007/Nov272007_02E2309.pdf
So, in that case, it was American citizenship being denied and the guy is deemed, upon application of American legal standards, to be confined to taking citizenship solely from the mother.
Absent a marriage – common law or statutory — a child is always confined to taking his status from the ONLY PARENT that can be known with certitude: the mother.”
This seems to affirm that the illegimate child would be a US citizen, if the mother was a US citizen, but would he be “natural born”–the specific type envisioned in Article 2?
Vattel’s definition required a citizen father and mother–did it also specify a legally-recognized marriage between them?
Also, recall the quote from Aristotle’s Politics, above.
And as to the case at hand, the father is not unknown, he was named on the birth certificate, and Obama has claimed him as such all his life.
I have a reference on Vattel for this, but I don’t feel like doing it yet until I get the point across of what Vattel actually meant by what he wrote; the actual part that was adopted into American jurisprudence. I’ll get to that yet.
All we are saying by the above is that legitimacy was a factor in law and that we made an inquiry to a group of lawyers about it. We make no assumptions of what the facts are in this particular case and if you notice, neither do they. The simple truth is that we don’t have all the facts. We don’t even have a statutory marriage certificate.
What we do know is that we’re not the first to ask the question and the question itself rules out the fallacy of birthright citizenship. For us, that’s important! Anyone who looks at the history and then looks at some of the current State laws, knows full well that birthright citizenship is the biggest lie ever told because none of it adds up to the conclusions they’re selling today.
As far as what actually happened, we have very few journalists who even attempted to find out. But those that did, knew damn well that legitimacy mattered. This research was done by another private group way back. Keep in mind that Congress has yet to consider any of it or fill-in the blanks. So any conclusions we could come to, wouldn’t be appropriate. Too many blanks, but interesting all the same. Just look at the trouble they went through.
“Time Magazine had an article profiling Stanley Ann Dunham which was published in April 2008, as the primaries were still underway. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524-3,00.html
And here’s the quote from page 3. When one source is explicitly cited, it almost always means it’s the only one available.
====
On Feb. 2, 1961, several months after they met, Obama’s parents got married in Maui, according to divorce records. It was a Thursday. At that point, Ann was three months pregnant with Barack Obama II. Friends did not learn of the wedding until afterward. “Nobody was invited,” says Abercrombie. …
Obama’s father had an agenda: to return to his home country and help reinvent Kenya. He wanted to take his new family with him. But he also had a wife from a previous marriage there—a marriage that may or may not have been legal. In the end, Ann decided not to follow him. “She was under no illusions,” says Abercrombie. “He was a man of his time, from a very patriarchal society.” Ann filed for divorce in Honolulu in January 1964, citing “grievous mental suffering”—the reason given in most divorces at the time. Obama Sr. signed for the papers in Cambridge, Mass., and did not contest the divorce.
====
Now, in unraveling some of this, here’s a link to an article dated shortly after the election from Kenya’s newspaper “The Standard”
http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143999026&cid=4
And here’s some of the interesting quotes from it:
(1) Speaking to The Standard at her house in Kogelo, Keziah narrated how she met Obama Senior at a village dance party deep in the rugged plains of Karachuonyo.
“He asked to dance with me during the party and I could not turn him down. He picked me from several girls present. A few days later, I married him,” Keziah says, her face beaming with nostalgia.
“He paid 14 cows as dowry which were delivered in two batches. This was because he loved me greatly,” she says.
If you do a look-up on “customary marriages” involving tribal rites, the exchange of property is noted to be very important and the notion that it’s a melding of two families / clans and not just the bride/groom. Also, in some tribes, any later “divorce” has to be accompanied by a payback of property given up as consideration for the marriage. But, since the whole notion of colonial law in Kenya was to accommodate the natives’ past practices of taking multiple wives, divorce was a rarity since men sticking only to tribal rites didn’t need to divorce the earlier wife or wives in order to marry again.
(2) “I never had a dull moment with him. He liked fun and loved good things. This is why I was not surprised when I heard that he had married a second wife in the US,” she quips.
(3) After arriving in the US, however, her husband was to fall in love with another woman — Ann Dunham (Barack’s mother — who he later married.
But in keeping with the Luo customs, Obama Senior sought her consent to take another wife, which she granted.
Keziah says she was happy to have a co-wife, and her husband kept her updated. He informed her when Barack Obama Junior was born.
She says that despite her husband marrying another woman in the US, she still loved him.
====
Notice the bolded-parts.
There’s a lack of internal consistency between those two quotes. One suggests she was told after-the-fact while the other suggests she had to be consulted and give consent per tribal customs. But could a “legitimate” marriage under Kenyan “customary marriage” statutes even be possible in Hawaii? Hawaii wouldn’t recognize it because it would be illegal polygamy in that jurisdiction. Even Kenya wouldn’t recognize it if it had the attributes of a MARRIAGE LICENSE and the expectation of local authorities conducting the marriage ceremony that it was a monogamous relationship. That would have made it analogous to Kenya’s scheme for “statutory marriages” — and in Kenya the latter required that a groom clean up his act and divorce all prior “tribal” wives or, in Kenya, he’d be in violation of their criminal laws prohibiting bigamy.
Conundrum time: If Obama Sr. was trying to undertake a “customary marriage” outside of Kenya, they’d have avoided getting a civil license or using a “real authority” empowered to marry people under Hawaii’s (monogamy-practicing) laws. Making it what kind of “marriage”? Well — it wouldn’t be a “statutory” one because that would have gotten him in trouble even back in his native country. And it wouldn’t be a “legal” binding one in Hawaii because it would be polygamous.
So that’s the research we were given. Whatever the actual truth is hasn’t been investigated, much less what his legal status is because none of this has even been scratched. How the hell certain senators and congressmen conclude he’s a natural-born citizen under Article II without even having vetted Obama’s history or placed it within the context of that law, is quite frankly, absurd and everyone knows it.
– Steve
UCONN
Steve, this whole invalid second marriage thing making Obama a natural born citizen is quite astonishing, but it seems to be very old citizen law. Isidore of Seville wrote around 600 AD that a law had been in place in ancient Rome that the child of a Roman male and a non-Roman native woman did not become a Roman cives, if the parents weren’t married, i.e. if the mother was only a concubine. And ironically, the child was called a naturalis! In any case, there is no territorial aspect mentioned. It’s only about parentage, and so naturally the status of the parents’ relationship had enormous consequences.
As U.S. Army Veteran who swore the oath of enlistment when I entered service or when I re-enlisted for additional years of service I have reviewed the oath of enlistment for the U.S. Army on several occasions since the election in Nov 2008.
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
When you look at that oath in its individual parts, you discover something interesting regarding the first the part, which does not apply to the second part.
The first part of the oath would be the following:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;”
When soldier’s of America’s Armed Forces swear or affirm the first part of the oath of enlistment, would there be any caveats or conditions under which they could ignore any portion of the first part of the oath of enlistment?
I see no caveats or conditions there. Soldier’s swearing to or affirming the first part of the oath of enlistment, are solemnly swearing or affirming that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
However, regarding the 2nd part where the portion most relevant to this discussion, states the following:
“and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States … according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Does anyone else see the two very important caveats or conditions which are very relevant to soldiers obeying the orders of the President of the United States?
Anyone?
1) According to regulatons.
What regulations?
Wouldn’t A2S1C5, of the Constitution of the United States, serve as the only regulation on the qualifications of candidates who would be seeking to serve in the office of President of the United States?
2) According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
935. ART. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY
(a) Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry.
(b) A court of inquiry consists of three or more commissioned officers. For each court of inquiry the convening authority shall also appoint counsel for the court.
(c) Any person subject to this chapter whose conduct is subject to inquiry shall be designated as a party. Any person subject to this chapter or employed by the Department of Defense who has a direct interest in the subject of inquiry has the right to be designated as a party upon request to the court. Any person designated as a party shall be given due notice and has the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, to cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence.
(d) Members of a court of inquiry may be challenged by a party, but only for cause stated to the court.
(e) The members, counsel, the reporter, and interpreters of courts of inquiry shall take an oath to faithfully perform their duties.
(f) Witnesses may be summoned to appear and testify and be examined before courts of inquiry, as provided for courts-martial.
(g) Courts of inquiry shall make findings of fact but may not express opinions or make recommendations unless required to do so by the convening authority.
(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings, which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority. If the record cannot be authenticated by the president, it shall be signed by a member in lieu of the president. If the record cannot be authenticated by the counsel for the court, it shall be signed by a member in lieu of the counsel.
883. ART. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION
Any person who–
(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder; or
(2) procures his own separation from the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his eligibility for that separation; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
884. ART. 84. UNLAWFUL ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION
Any person subject to this chapter who effects an enlistment or appointment in or a separation from the armed forces of any person who is known to him to be ineligible for that enlistment, appointment, or separation because it is prohibited by law, regulation, or order shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
I agree, that Obama’s agenda is dangerous for the country. Clearly, that’s the case.
However, again, if he was born to an unwed citizen mother in the state of Hawaii, there is honestly little doubt that the SCOTUS (ultimately, presumably) would find him to be a Natural Born Citizen, almost certainly a 5 to 4 vote. On what grounds would this court, in this day and age, find otherwise?
He may be an outright marxist, but in the case above, he would be considered Constitutionally eligible. It would have been the fault of the American citizenry and the media for not “vetting” the guy properly and being seriously uneducated on American history and civics.
If Sr. was his legal father, then his (foreign) citizenship at birth is really the only issue to be concerned with.
If Sr. was not his legal father (which is a distinct possibility), then his place of birth becomes very important because of his mother’s age.
Of course, none of this will be determined in a court of law without a proper case with the proper jurisdiction and unfortunately, at this point, that looks unlikely. Hopefully, that will change.
Does our entry on Global Dashboard gain access to your research blog? I do not know if this is so. I do not even know if this is the right question. I would have to use a new “name” since I already have an account with an avatar.
Global Dashboard is used to control the blog. It’s where you post new entries, approve comments and that sort of thing. I’m not sure what you mean by trying to use a “new name”.
– Steve
UCONN
Steve:
I have never used a password to enter any comment on this site. I just use my name with the e-mail and the comments are entered for moderation. Now, I do have a account with WordPress.com with a password, but I have not used it on this site. With that account I had to use another name since the required name that I normally use was taken already.
UR: Please send me an e-mail to hugh.hudson@usa.net dealing with my above comment. When I enter a password I am not yet able to gain access. Hence, I am blog-challenged in this regard. So then you may delete both entries. Thanks for your help. And thanks for your excellent research!
Hugh
Steve:
“Absent a marriage – common law or statutory — a child is always confined to taking his status from the ONLY PARENT that can be known with certitude: the mother.”
Concerning the above, Donofrio has said that “natural born Citizen” is a circumstance of birth. In a marriage if both parents are citizens before the birth of the child on US soil then the child is a natural born Citizen. If one parent fails the citizenship test, the child can only be a citizen. If foreign born, the child is not even a US citizen.
Am I correct or am I making a big blunder?
Again, the founders made a strict Constitutional requirement concerning natural born Citizens. If this be true and the founders were aware of illegitimate one-parent circumstances, why did they not close this loophole. Did the founders attempt to resolve this issue?
Is Donofrio aware of this illegitimate one-parent situation?
Ok, let’s make this simple. If the mother and father of a child born in the U.S., are both U.S. citizens, the topic is moot. The United States recognizes that child as an American citizen. It’s not because the child was born here, it’s because there is no conflict. A conflict occurs when two nations have differing laws and the dispute has to be settled somehow. The attempt to settle that is through agreed upon International Law treatises; an agreement by the two countries that have the differing laws. When the two countries don’t agree, you run into problems such as dual-allegiances, which this country doesn’t recognize. This country understands it exists as a matter of unresolved conflicting views, but it doesn’t embrace or even encourage the idea.
If jus soli was what the Founders wanted, there would have been no reason for Ramsay to write a dissertation countering it or for Justice Story to write Conflict of Laws doing the same or the myriad of other texts we have found that I really need to get up some of them because you can’t understand all this without it.
It is true that much was said about a child following the nationality of the father – partus sequitur patrem. This settles the question of what actual nationality the children took of married couples – the father. It was also agreeable to International Law of the day. But then what about the cases where the couple wasn’t married and the nationalities conflicted? What did they have to say about that, if anything? Well, first of all, they’re considered illegitimate children. I tried to give examples where they covered that, because it was found in history and we can’t just discount it. We covered it for that reason. We also found that in those cases of illegitimate children, the child followed the nationality of the mother (see my previous post). In the cases of foundlings, the child belonged to the country in which they were found. It sounds weird, but babies are abandoned still to this day and what happens? They become wards of the State; protected by them until they are adopted. It’s the same principle and it stems from these earliest laws.
What they were trying to do was account for as many situations as people could shove questions at them. The questions are no different than what we find today. In fact, back then, it was wrought with even more problems.
I can’t speak for Mr. Donofrio, but I’m sure he’s aware that anchor babies being citizens at birth isn’t a founding principle. We can prove that and have. Now if they weren’t in the earliest history, then how could they be considered “natural-born citizens” now? No matter how they twist the Fourteenth Amendment, there is nothing in it that states anyone born here is now considered a “natural-born citizen”. Nowhere, nadda, zilch.
There is only one type of person that was, could be or ever has been a truly “natural-born citizen” and that is what we wrote on the main page, as a product of the events straight from history:
2. The children of those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of Independence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of a sovereign America. The children of those citizens of the new nation, are the natural-born citizens of this country; not their parents who NEEDED to be grandfathered into the Constitution itself, and not foreigners who became citizens (note: not natural-born citizens), agreeable to law after the fact.
Before this event, there was no such thing as a natural-born citizen. David Ramsay, endowed with the title of the first American Historian, destroys any presumption that this title is synonymous with “natural born subject” in the English law sense. He completely removes any doubt from any lying lips out there. The people selling that bogus lie are either completely ignorant or doing it on purpose.
Trust me, we know exactly what they’re up to, who they are and exactly where we’re going with this. It may not seem so, but we know what we’re doing. You just gotta trust that we are on the side of the Constitution, we have the proof and we have a plan of action they aren’t going to like.
– Steve
UCONN
Steve:
So absence of conflict seems to be a key. A child born in a foreign country to American parents, or a child born in America to foreign born parents would be conflicting, possibly causing allegiance problems, etc. So, it appears, in your studies you have highlighted to a great degree how the founders resolved the conflicts, and dealt with the issues.
I am excited about your last paragraph. Thanks for recognizing that we regular blog posters do not understand as you do. Please give us updates when you deem it appropriate. Thanks!
It’s not hard once you get the basics down and you have. Any conflict where you see someone dragging in the laws of foreign countries in this way, demonstrates that there’s a question of allegiance; either voluntary or involuntary based on that nation’s laws. A natural-born citizen doesn’t have these doubts, questions or things to be answered. They are the product of lawful citizens to begin with and inherit a pure, untainted status that doesn’t require even having to consider foreign claims. Those claims just don’t come into play at all. They don’t exist.
It’s interesting that certain websites that claim Obama is eligible were really the first to drag in these foreign doubts. In doing that, they are being counter-productive to their claims. They’re the ones saying there is/was a conflict to be considered in the first place. If it doesn’t matter, then why bring it up? Of course, we maintain that it really doesn’t matter what they claim, the question that arose from it has never been legally answered but they can thank themselves for the question. But then they go too far and make really wild claims that merely being born here, makes one eligible to run for president because natural born subject is really where natural born citizen spawned from. And that’s simply not true as a matter of historical fact. And that’s why I guess we got off our butts and woke up, too.
If the people who wrote that disinformation were just ignorant to the truth, then our question to them is why don’t they just admit they were wrong at least in the difference between subjects and citizens? Let’s start there. They were shown the papers on it. Any true American would have appreciated it and respected it. But they suspiciously don’t; which leaves us to believe they aren’t interested in the truth. They want us to spill everything we’ve got so they can tear it apart, lie about it and then take their time confusing as many people as they can before another election takes place. And they don’t like the Founders. We only put up VERY few references so far and they’re already having this much of a fit? They’re seriously not going to be too happy with the rest of it.
– Steve
UCONN
Steve,
I congratulate you on your work in this Forum. However, I must point out one glaring error that you have made, repeatedly. You use the term “natural-born citizen”.
The correct term, as hand-written on the original Constitution document, is “natural born Citizen”. There is no hyphen and the first letter of the word Citizen is capitalized.
There is no significance in the use of a capital C in Citizen, other than the fact that Citizen is a noun – and all nouns, in this original Constitution document, were written with the first letter capitalized (apart from a few exceptions). The Constitution is a legal document. We must all be totally accurate in the way that we quote it.
In writing, “natural-born citizen”, you are applying modern norms of grammar to The Constitution, thereby giving credence to the notion that The Constitution is a ‘living document’ – subject to the whims and fashions of the modern age. I am sure that you did not have that intention when you ‘misquoted’ The Constitution and I am sure that, from now on, you will not repeat the error.
Remember, the notorious, obfuscatory and misdirecting, Chiyome Fukino, Director of The Department of Health in the State of Hawai’i, who used the term “natural-born American citizen” to describe Mr Obama. This term merely means a citizen of a Country on the continent of North America or South America and someone who was natural-born – as opposed to being born by un-natural medical procedure, such as Caesarian section.
Words have meaning – and so, too, does grammar.
Agreed. The Constitution really is not hard to understand. It was written in plain language. Whatever the words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, et alia, meant when the Constitution was written, they still mean today.
The beauty of being a citizen is that each of us can read the Constitution, do our own research, and realize the same meanings the writers embodied in it. We do not have to, nor should we, accept anyone else’s interpretation of the Constitution. But for those who don’t have the facilities, fortitude or time to research the subject, this is a fine stand-in.
Thank you all for this great bit of research. I look forward to the next installment.
Neal P. Murphy
Salem, Virg.
” we have the proof and we have a plan of action they aren’t going to like.”
So very much so looking forward to that day! Having a usurper, and thus a present day Constitutional crisis on our hands has been awful. And is proven, daily, by his actions.
It’s actually a blessing in disguise, don’t you think? They wanted to bury our Constitution and the history that goes along with it. All they’ve succeeded in doing is drawing attention and support to it. And they’re being voted out by the people or by fate itself already. It’s not going to get any better for them because they refuse to knock it off. I can’t imagine what’s going through the Supreme Court’s head right about now but I’d say this game has just kicked off and it’s already gotten ugly. When you see the Chief taking on another Chief’s disrespect, you can almost bet the little chiefs aren’t far behind.
– Steve
UCONN
Steve:
Unity at UCONN and UR seems to be a really big issue. That is a very critical issue. I know that UR mostly does sub-rosa work at this time. How may I help you? A situation came up in December 2008 that may interest UR as an encouragement. What I will say is not for public consumption. My e-mail shows in the “leave a comment” section, so I guess you have access to it.
Have a great day!
Hugh
I’m not Steve, but for what my opinion is worth, I think the problem right now is addressing what Berg birther-types and anti-birthers have in common, not what they don’t have in common.
The real problem here is that someone out there is making the focus of A2 in our Constitution that decides who can be president, contingent upon one thing and one only, a valid piece of paper that says the person was born here and that’s the only requirement.
My experience is that people will gravitate to whatever uses the least amount of brain cells. These people don’t want to read any more legal briefs that fall on deaf ears. If you ask me they’re sick of the crutch that Vattel has become for lack of finding anything else since poor Paul Madison brought it up. The same cases and one book have been beaten to death and no one has walked away with a clear sense of what the framers/founders thought from it yet. Heck, it’s been almost 2 years now and I still see them fighting over the same material! It’s ridiculous!!!
I don’t care about what schmuck Judge thought about things almost a century later or what that foreigner wrote in his version of international law either. I care about what the actual American people who were there at the time said and that’s it.
I say put up Ramsay’s dissertation for starters and let them digest that. We’ve talked about it enough and we didn’t even let them see it! What’s wrong with at least giving them that? We didn’t mention the other work. Ask them to pass that around and have their kids read it. It’s educational. Bring it to school and shove it in every teacher’s face they can find. Make thousands of copies and give them to your friends. It’s not long. It’s 6 pages! Remind congress that it’s in their library and tell them to read it. Send it to Beck for all I care. If that doesn’t start a truthful discussion, I don’t know what will, but waiting around while this insidious lie gains ground is just stupid to me.
I’ll catch up with you in private, Hugh. Thanks for the offer to help.
– John –
Undead Revolution
UR,
It isn’t necessary that you publish what I’m about to say, but I wanted you to know that I have done a lot more research on smrstrauss since publication of my first article. Two days ago I published another article, this time revealing the names of the key activists, their location, and some intriguing coincidences that may connect them to Organizing for America and David Axelrod’s sister.
SMRSTRAUSS: The Total Reveal & Their Tangled Web
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/03/smrstrauss-total-reveal-their-tangled.html
On February 12, 2010 at 5:33, you said to me, “Great job, Erica, but I’d go back to my first hunch if I were you. Ya missed something. – UR”
If you still think I missed something, please let me know and I’ll follow the scent.
Is it this week you’re having the penultimate/ultimate meeting at which your group will decide about the publishing your research?
” I care about what the actual American people who were there at the time said and that’s it.”
As do I because that’s the bottom line on this.
If there does exist such information, it needs to be made public sooner rather than latter.
“I say put up Ramsay’s dissertation for starters and let them digest that. We’ve talked about it enough and we didn’t even let them see it! What’s wrong with at least giving them that? We didn’t mention the other work. Ask them to pass that around and have their kids read it. It’s educational.”
Exactly. Get the information out there so the American people can have the “evidence” of fact. Not anonymous theory on the internet.
The more the citizens know about the framers intent, the more likely they are to press the issue with their representatives and the media, which increases the chances of the real issue(s) being discussed in public which in turn increases the chances of getting a resolution on this Constitutional crisis.
Right now, there is some plausible deniability.
The excuse that’s heard over and over again, is that people in a position of power to do “anything” about this say something like…well, I have no doubt he was born in HI.
Let’s remove that with historical evidence. Barry has already stated he was governed by Great Britain at birth. Put the undeniable information out there, showing the framers intent for NBC. Then the issue can not be ignored or assumed away.
The only way he gets around the NBC issue, is if Sr. really wasn’t his legal father. In which case, he would need to deal with the issue of a falsified government document being “proudly” displayed on his campaign web site.
Keeping the information secret lessons the chance of resolution.
On the question of the illegitimacy of the birth of Barack Obama II, I believe that Stanley Ann Dunham probably concocted a fictional marriage to Barack Obama I, in order to provide a fig-leaf for the illegitimacy of her son. She would have done so to make everything look ‘nice’ for the sake of the sensibilities of her intended husband, the Muslim, Lolo Soetoro and for the sake of the sensibilities of Lolo Soetoro’s Muslim family.
This is totally plausible – all Dunham had to do was make a statement to The Divorce Court in Hawai’i, alleging that she had married Barack Obama I, in Maui, in February 1961, and then serve divorce papers to Obama I’s last known address in the Boston area. Obama I did not reply – either by prior collusion with Dunham or because he had already left that address – this too would probably have been known by Dunham. The Divorce Court in Hawai’i, then rubber-stamped the divorce of ‘the marriage that probably never was’ – so, everyone is happy. Stanley Ann Dunham gets her marriage to Lolo Soetoro and ‘legitimizes’ her son in the process.
It would not have crossed the mind of Stanley Ann Dunham, that 48 years later her ‘sham’ marriage to Obama I, would lead to complaints that her son Barack Obama II had usurped the Presidency of The USA, because he was not a ‘natural born Citizen’ of The USA.
Now, assuming that Mr Obama was born illegitimate, to a US citizen Mother and a foreign national Father (a BRITISH SUBJECT – no less) – is that a condition that would have troubled the Framers of The Constitution? You are D**N right it would. The purpose of the ‘natural born Citizen’ requirement in The Constitution was to try to ensure that The Commander in Chief of US military forces could have no potential allegiances to a foreign state.
Under the Laws of Nature, it is natural for a son to have an allegiance to the Nation of his Father, regardless of whether, or not, his Father and Mother, were willing (or able) to get married.
The burden of proof is on the candidate, who aspires to be entrusted with The Office of President of The United States of America, to prove that he or she is a natural born Citizen. To do that, the candidate must prove that he or she was born in The USA to parents who were both Citizens of The USA at the time of the candidate’s birth.
Ask yourself this question. If your parents, for one reason or another had not married each other, would that have diminished your allegiance to the nation of origin of your Father or Mother? Many, if not most people, will answer that that would not diminish their allegiance(s) to the Nation(s) of their parents – and this is the point.
There is a RISK of divided allegiances, in a candidate for POTUS, if he was born abroad or if either of his natural parents (married or unmarried) was a foreign national. This is the danger that The Framers’, ‘original intent’ sought to protect us from. Recent events have PROVEN the WISDOM of that ‘ORIGINAL INTENT’ of The Framers of The Constitution of The USA.
Interesting:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/justices-to-weigh-citizenship-rule/
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case this fall dealing with citizenship law.
UR team,
What are your thoughts about this:
“DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN [Lt. Col.] REFUSES ALL MILITARY ORDERS BECAUSE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DOCUMENT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY”
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release.html
Would he have “standing” in a court (presumably military) that had “jurisdiction” to address this issue?
Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
Mario Apuzzo
You and Apuzzo are a little late to that party. We posted that research done at UCONN over at Leo’s blog over a year ago.
Adam
Undead Revolution
Looks like your (re)discovery of Ramsay’s work is now a bit more widely known:
“Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html
It’s also part of:
“KERCHNER v OBAMA (APPEAL) – Letter Dated 4-2-10”
Will the folks at UR be releasing any additional historical evidence regarding the meaning of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen?”
That document was originally given to Leo Donofrio in private by UR.
Dear UR:
Here is an article [url deleted – we’re not going to entertain that idiot] attacking David Ramsay, founder, concerning Apuzzo’s article, which is causing a “firestorm” at least on this pro-Obama site. Please send me a copy of Ramsay’s 6-page Dissertation at hugh.hudson@usa.net, is you deem it appropriate to contact me directly. I want to say something to UR but I want to do it sub rosa. Thanks!
Any comments concerning this article is appreciated.
Mario Apuzzo has filed a document from 1787 by a South Carolina physician and member of the Continental Congress, David Ramsay, with his appeal in Kerchner v. Obama. Ramsay’s most important contribution is generally seen as his role as a historian of South Carolina and of the American Revolution.
It would be nice if Mario Apuzzo stated where he got his information from, much of which came from Leo Donofrio!
The dissertation, Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States, was not a work of history but a political broadside written by Ramsay as part of a campaign to prevent the seating of his congressional opponent William Smith, whom Ramsay considered ineligible. Ramsay’s petition to Congress to unseat Smith was rejected 36-1, and even though he lost Ramsay kept beating his dead horse.
William Smith was born in Carolina before the Revolutionary War. He was orphaned age 11 and was studying abroad in Geneva when he came of age during the revolt against Britain.
While not central to the understanding of the Dissertation, one must have at least an awareness of the issue of slavery. Ramsay establishes this early on when he says: “Negroes are inhabitants but not citizens.” He wrote elsewhere: “…those who have grown up in the habits of slavery are incapable of enjoying the blessings of freedom.”
The immediate context is a political campaign for Congress. The Dissertation is a political pamphlet written to influence the congressional decision whether or not to seat Ramsay’s political opponent Smith. Ramsay is keen to deny the citizenship rights based on parentage to anyone whose parent was not a citizen of the United States or of someone who lived in the American colonies but died before they declared their intentions to side with the British or the Americans during the war. He says “citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens.” [Emphasis added.] Apuzzo would have us this apply this statement broadly, rather than just to those who are claiming citizenship by inheritance. However, the section title of this area of the dissertation is “birth or inheritance.” In the narrative, Ramsay only talks about citizenship by inheritance, repeating that word twice more covering the entire section. He left the topic of citizenship by birth tacit, although it did talk about this in another publication (see below).
The one sentence that I found that is most friendly to Apuzzo’s thesis is this: “The citizenship of no man could be previous to the Declaration of Independence, and, as a natural right belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776″. [Emphasis added.] Ramsay may have used “natural right” as equivalent to inheritance, and his intention may or may not be related to the usage in the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause. However, there is no support for the de Vattel definition of “indegenes” because nowhere does Ramsay say that a citizen by natural right has to be born in the country. In all fairness, Ramsay may be seen to say that a person born in Kenya to one US citizen parent is eligible to be president of the US if he were educated in the United States and chose to live as an American at age 21.
One would certainly want to investigate the Smith / Ramsay controversy further and in particular the Congressional debate over the seating of Smith.
It is further interesting that contemporary newspaper coverage (Charleston City Gazette, November 22) to the challenge pointed out that it was not private citizens, nor the courts, who would decide the eligibility question, but Congress who according to the Constitution judged the qualifications of its own members (just as it determines the eligibility of US Presidents.) However, that same newspaper editorial (it appears by Ramsay) said (Mario, you owe me one): “the circumstance of birth in the country by no means make a citizen.” However, the statement did not mean to imply that parentage was the requisite addition, but rather “some positive act”. Ramsay seemed to consider citizenship something to be affirmed when someone becomes of age.
In his own defense (you can’t make this up!) William Smith quotes Emerich de Vattel:
The Doctor [Ramsay] says the circumstances of birth do not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says: “The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent.” I was born a Carolinian [before the Declaration], and I defy the Doctor to say at what moment I was disenfranchised. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen, though then resident at Geneva…. There was never a moment when I was a citizen of any other country.
Perhaps Obama denialists are channeling an early American letter writer who said: “Let Mr. Smith show, to the satisfaction of the public that he was a citizen, previous to his return here, and his work is done — he will not lose a single vote.”
And check out this anti-Smith letter to the Charleston paper by the anonymous Epaminondas:
…For that he [Smith] is a citizen now we may well admit, altho it may be denied by that principle of the British constitution, which says, “that the natural born subject of one prince cannot by swearing allegiance to another prince put off or discharge him from that natural allegiance, and that it cannot be deserted without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due.” But now being an independent nation we make no appeals to the British constitution, but to the general law of nations [lower case] which should decide this point, should his allegiance ever be claimed by the Crown of Great Britain,…
[Doc recovers from coughing fit. Steady Doc. Breathe slowly; keep reading]
…what then do these laws say? They say, “that the first founders or states, and all those who afterwards became members thereof, are supposed to have stipulated, that their children and descendants should at their first coming into the world have the right or enjoying those advantages which are common to all the members or the state; provided nevertheless, that those descendants, when they attain to the use or reason, be on their part willing to submit to the government and to acknowledge the authority or the sovereign: but the stipulation of the parents cannot in its own nature have the force or subjecting the children against their will to an authority to which they would not themselves choose to submit. Hence the authority or the sovereign over the children or the members of the state, and the right on the other hand which these children have to the protection or the sovereign and to the advantages of the government, are founded on mutual consent. Nor if the children or members or the state upon attaining to the years of discretion are willing to live in the place or their parentage, or in their native country, they are by this very act supposed to submit themselves to the power that governs the state.” From this account or the matter, I think, two corollaries may be drawn: 1st. That no person does or can by birth become the absolute subject or any state; there is indeed an obligation on the sovereign or that state where he is born, to admit him as a subject, should such be his election, when he arrives at the age of discretion, but no obligation on his part so to elect. 2d. That a voluntary residence in the country where one is born, after he arrives to
years of discretion: (and a fortiori to years or maturity) completes his part of the contract, and establishes his civil connection with that state. This cannot be destroyed but by some overt act of a higher and stronger nature, either on the part of the sovereign, or on his own part. In the one case it may be a withdrawing or common protection, or a banishment or his person: in the other case a voluntary removal from that state, and the swearing of allegiance to and settling of himself in another. when either of these take place the connection is dissolved. If the first of these inferences be not true, then it remains that the honorable gentleman now offering as a candidate inherited an unqualified allegiance to the Crown of England from his father who died a British Subject.
This argument basically concludes that Smith, whose father always was a British subject, could not claim citizenship in the United States until he set foot in the United States after his age of majority and affirmed his citizenship. And that this affirmation was not 7 years before his election to Congress, but 5.
Ramsay was shot at Charleston, SC, on May 6, 1815 by a lunatic and died 2 days later. Smith served 2 years in Congress.
The William Smith story was also first researched by us. It’s posted right in this blog in the comments. Neither of these guys did much of their own work. They really should. The bad part is that they fight over it and don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
William Smith was given the benefit of the doubt by Congress due to his helpful engagements with the founders when they were abroad (they knew him) and the troubles he alleged in gaining passage back to America.
I have all these documents and have read them. It was also concluded in the end that William Smith was a deceiver and that came from Congress. So I guess David Ramsay was right all along about him.
– John –
Undead Revolution
Why is everyone acting as if the Ramsay-Smith affair & the whole citizenship thing is a “discovery”/something uncovered or revealed? We; our teacher classmates & I- discussed all of this- AT LENGTH & in great depth 30+ yrs ago in my JR. High(7th grade) U.S. history class
First, let me congratulate you on having actually been educated on Ramsay in U.S. History class. After all, he was one of the first major American Historians and he wrote volumes (see references on the blog) on the subject. I just wish you would have mentioned your knowledge of it back on Leo’s blog when we had to counter the falsehoods then and went through a lot to find it. We weren’t taught about him. We had to dig.
I agree. The Dissertation is not a political ruse, but rather a confirmation of everything else he wrote and that he believed was the factual basis that gave rise to the ideals of our foundation. The Dissertation is merely part and parcel of the entire historical record and confirms the intent behind the Constitution that not too long ago, dissenters argued wasn’t even there or was “ambiguous”. Hardly. They argued natural born citizen was synonymous with natural born subject. Big lie there, too. Remember when Leo addressed this way back? Ramsay snuffed that one out completely and they just ignored it. Our research didn’t fit their agenda. I think that’s a given. They don’t care if they lie. They make no apologies when they do, either. The goal is propaganda. Apuzzo’s problem is that he opts to argue points he found elsewhere with ignorant idiots. I assume you’re talking about him since he’s the one who opted to take our research on Ramsay, (just to name one), blog it himself and then attempt to defend it by going to the idiot blogs without the rest of the proof. The only thing he even has on his own blog is what hundreds of other blogs have already researched, let’s face it. That’s easy. It’s much harder to pour over tens of thousands of documents yourself, trust me.
As far as lawyers go who think they are going to represent this issue, I’ll make the distinction right now. Donofrio strikes me as a man who will work with others for a cause he believes in. Apuzzo didn’t strike me that way and he knows why. Personalities aside, the truth is, if ANY lawyer thinks they’re going to take on the entire Obama administration and those who love the idea of fundamentally transforming the United States of America alone, they live in a fantasy world. Any lawyer who thinks showing your opposition everything you’ve got on the internet, is a lousy strategist.
I wish him a lot of luck, but I don’t approve of the way he’s going about this quite frankly. That may seem harsh, but I try to tell it like it is. He shouldn’t have done what he did. He doesn’t know how to argue it. He knew the original was going out when our own members complained we didn’t share the entire contents of the original and supporting documents with the public, and he made the decision to grab it and blog it and argue it without all the facts. Whatever. /shrug
Our plan was always to put it all out before the elections, where the people could decide what the truth really was and avoid the nit-picking of the various pieces the way it’s being handled now.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
UCONN
How do I get to the private blog?
Additional historical reference to the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen” has bee (re) discovered:
The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states
“The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
From Leo’s site:
Nice to see Leo back posting again!
Unfortunately, if one continues on -to read the article(“Mass & South Carolina”)in it’s entirety The author(s) appear to contradict what it is they have written (the above passage excerpted)
[…] site to be very worthwhile. They have really researched the meaning of "natural born citizen." The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen Undead Revolution __________________ http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3…s/DSC00151.jpg *2003'3500,Laramie,4 […]
UR Folks:
I’m not sure how much progress you’ve made recently toward revealing the extent of your research. However, appropos of the comments I made earlier regarding Adams’ use of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ circa 1783 in drafts of the Treaty of Paris, I recently learned that, during negotiations over a proposed trade treaty with the UK in 1785, John Adams (then our ambassador to the U.K.) and Thomas Jefferson together (as a negotiating team in London) proposed equal treatment as between citizens of the U.S. and subjects of the U.K. This seems very similar to Adams’ proposed language for the Treaty of Paris, circa 1783.
I’m passing on this note because I thought you might want to look into whether the term ‘natural born citizen’ was used at the highest levels of U.S. government in 1785, once again by Adams, and for the first time (that I know of, at least) by Jefferson himself, as part of urgent trade treaty negotiations with the British.
Publius
That was the first track Stanley Klos put us on, the Treaty of Paris. His YouTube page is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/stanklos – Great guy, check him out if you get time.
UR Folks:
Do you have the new (to modern readers) information regarding Thomas Jefferson’s use of the term ‘natural born citizen’ (no hypen) in 1777 in his role as Chairman of a committee of the Continental Congress? If not, I’ll pass on the information.
This appears very promising. As far as I can tell, he was the first to use the term in conjunction with the term ‘United States’–just one year after he penned the Declaration of Independence.
Publius
I’m not sure but I’ll check with the others, thanks. There’s so much stuff. I’ll see what we’ve got on him and catch up with you in an email when I ask around.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
UCONN
UR Folks:
Check out this story from the May 21-23 Weekend edition of Metro New York newspaper:
“$300K in fines
“A book President George Washington borrowed from the New York Society Library in 1789 — but never returned — came home this week. “The Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel was replaced with a copy of the same edition by staff from Washington’s Mount Vernon home. Metro/AZ”
Publius
Yeah, I saw that on the news and got a chuckle out of it.” I BET they’d love to have that book back. 😉
Adam –
Undead Revolution
UCONN
HOLY SMOKES! is all I have to say. I came late to this debate and I have to say I am intrigued and quite overwhelmed. There is so much information here that it is hard to take it all in. When my head started to hurt I almost gave up, but I stuck with it and have learned a lot because of it. I want to thank you for standing up for the Constitution. In this day and age when very few young people care about anything, you folks are doing due diligence and defending the founding fathers. It is very impressive and makes me very proud. We are in fact growing up good citizens. Principle people ready to carry the mantle of true justice, freedom and the American spirit! Thank You again!
Dear Hugh,
Mario Apuzzo didn’t find David Ramsay. This research group did and ran it first past Leo Donofrio who posted snippets of it in his old blog. We had some great private discussions on these things. We have some of those snippets here, too. However, Ramsay is not even the half of it.
Truthfully, we held off posting the entirety of the Dissertation because we were waiting for a later date, where combined with the rest of the material, would educate people before idiots like Dr. What’s-His-Name, who for God knows what reason, love to tear into the founders of America. I personally didn’t read what he wrote and have no interest in whatever he has to say. The document speaks for itself. We find groups like his completely anti-American and we refuse to wrangle with them as Apuzzo has elected to do. That’s his choice, but this is our research, not his.
With that said, this is the original document that I had up on scribd for awhile but forgot to put the link here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28323742/A-Dissertation-on-the-Manner-of-Acquiring-the-Character-and-Privileges-of-a-Citizen-David-Ramsay
Enjoy!
Steve – UR
I received an email from Sally Vendee today that I thought I’d share with everyone. This is an excellent piece she wrote in the Post & Email. I doubt Horowitz will reply. He would have to admit she was right. May as well just pretend he never saw it.
Steve – UR
UR folks…
Any progress on locating additional historical documents that show the “natural born citizen” to Vattel link?
Allegedly, there exists some Adam’s family, and Lee family papers that have not been seen by the general public, that prove the framers got their definition and understanding of a natural born citizen from Vattel’s work.
When might they, or other documents, be published?
The country is devolving by the day now.
We need relief from the usurper and his cronies.
Yep. We have the definitive proof of the Vattel link to the Constitution straight from historical documentation. By the way, I think Kelly was intending on reviewing that with the original person by the name of Paul Madison who first published it at The Federalist Blog: http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html – That piece came just after Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit and it was ZAPEM’s guess that it was written as a result of it. Our path to that discovery is due to Madison’s work and he honestly deserves all credit to Vattel. I believe she also sent it to a few key people where it would interest the most, the Supreme Court. And no, I don’t mean lawyers, although some private lawyers have reviewed this already (meaning not in public and don’t post on the internet).
Senator Russell Pearce (AZ) was obviously paying attention. The hint and key is right at the 1 min. mark in this tape w/ Bill O’Reilly. But in O’Reilly’s case, I think it went straight over his head:
The key is “domicile” and Sen. Pearce got it hands down. You should have heard us when we saw this segment which was aired last month on O’Reilly because we first realized it from ZAPEM’s work done in October, 2009. Here’s the first clip from that discussion so you can see some of the historical data and discussion behind it. Bear in mind that from Jacobs we tied in Justice Story’s work, Ramsay and followed it all the way back to George Washington, who was ripping the pages right out of Vattel in his written work. So was Justice Story for that matter, only he quotes him more regularly.
But so as to not confuse you with the whole thing, it’s probably best to just start with where we started from. Here’s the clip from 2009’s private discussions (which we may make public soon):
In the book by Jacobs starting at page 17 of Section, he quotes something very interesting.
“Vattel, in his ‘Law of Nations,’ treats of the subject of ‘settlement’ in precisely the same manner as ‘domicil’ is now treated of at page 103 of his work, and as the French word ‘domicile’ was translated ‘settlement’…”
From Vattel’s Law of Nations, page 103:
“Settlement is a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stays a long time, he has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. Thus, the envoy of a foreign prince has not his settlement at the court where he resides.
The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we have abandoned it, in order to choose another. The acquired settlement (adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5pymzJEOWscC&printsec=frontcover&dq=emmerich+de+vattel+the+law+of+nations#v=onepage&q=settlement&f=false
Washington discusses nativity, native born with connections to the country, family and being a “settled” resident of it.
Story discusses the finer details of domicil.
Jacobs refers back to the origin in Vattel and translates domicil as meaning “settlement”.
There you go, Splooge. I’ll work out the rest for you later.
/end clip 1
So you see, the French word ‘domicil’ was translated ‘settlement’ and it’s quite accurate when deciphering Vattel’s statement: “the natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his”. Washington, Ramsay and Story accepted and embraced this philosophy and demonstrate it by using the words “domicil and settlement” interchangeably. However, Story goes on to address further the international conflicts involved and writes an American Treatise in Conflict of Laws which the British themselves hailed and accepted. Here we see the marriage, wedlock and foundling intricacy’s played out.
Ok now, the next clip should give you a better understanding of the dialogue between UCONN and a few lawyers at the time:
Now if you read that page by Jacobs (which, by the way, at least one of the professors gave UR to read), it says that it was non-existent in English law at the time Vattel and Story were writing about it. Jacobs points out that domicil is not mentioned in Viner’s Abridgement, Bacon’s Abridgement, Brackton, Blackstone and all their major authorities at the time.
What I didn’t know was that domicil (no “e”) is French for “settlement”. I knew that Washington used the words “settled resident” and that Story used the term “domicil”, but I had no idea that Vattel also used the word “domicil” in French that was translated to “settlement” in the English versions of “Law of Nations”. There’s an entire section on it in the “Law of Nations” that no one has mentioned that reads almost the same as Vattel’s “natural born citizen” section. I quoted part of it.
Apparently whatever interest UR caught from the professors, they were as demanding as Mike was in that they wanted a substantive connection to Vattel and not a “theory”.
Note: “domicile” in French is translated to “an intruder into one’s home” as opposed to “domicil” which when translated from the French is “settlement”. The English “domicile” that we write is obviously from the “settlement” translation and not referring to an intruder.
/end clip 2
The hard part was tying in the historical proof that landed all this. Jacob’s makes the translation and rams it home. See Chitty’s translation:
It seems that Joseph Story was the first to use the word, but the translation seems to come from Vattel, where, when “Law of Nations” is translated into English by Chitty, it’s written as as “settlement”. Jacobs is the one who says that Vattel originally wrote it as “domicil”. Story is the one who keeps the French word “domicil” in his writings. Chitty translated it to the English and writes it as “settlement” in the English version of “Law of Nations”.
/end clip 3
And here’s the rest of the introductory research:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19673827/Citizenship-by-Birth-Another-View?secret_password=1qli47pfqc0pd9ccwcpu
If we take the point of Joseph Story regarding domicle and residence, which I posted in the GW thread, then read this law review, you’ll see this:
“But the question of domicile is important in this connection. One born of parents temporarily in our country is not born with the stamp of domicile and intention to reside here. Those two elements of national jurisdiction are wanting.”
This sums up everything in a nutshell. Ide starts out going through all the statutes of England from Edward III to Anne to Charles II found in John Alderson Foote’s treatise on foreign and domestic law.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qKkNAAAAYAAJ&dq=foote+on+private+international+jurisprudence&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=qmv7m0c450&sig=9Sh-xbxUGOzpkpm8FSUbCCUQLJg&hl=en&ei=kUqrSvmeJIXLlAfo3a3SBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
It can do wonders on your brain absorbing it all. But when it all comes down to it, it seems to me that so far as the United States is concerned, domicile and intent make all the difference in the world. The Chinese problem is indicated in the review, as well as in Wharton and Westlake. They’re a unique situation due to the laws of the Chinese government and the Chinese Exclusion Acts that were instituted in the United States.
Nevertheless, even this rebuttal comes in with the distinction of domicile and intent and I’m sure it’s because of all the precedents made using the doctrine set forth by Joseph Story which was accepted internationally.
It would seem to me that the Framers did adopt Vattel’s standard under Article II and the section by Pacificus is a strong argument for that….
/end clip 4
Are you getting the pieces to the puzzle yet? There’s a legal brief on all of this done but I think they would confuse the hell out of most people. The challenge was in finding historical proof that Vattel was in fact, a definitive influence on American jurisprudence, especially during the events that led up to and including, the signing of the Constitution and thereafter. Saying it was so just wasn’t enough. Impression and innuendo didn’t count either. We didn’t get any points for that.
Adam
Undead Revolution
The IDE law review was written directly at the time in reply to Collins regarding Wong Kim Ark. The Vattel connection becomes relevant when we see that these lawyers at the time realize the true meaning behind “domicile”.
From Washington to Ramsay to Story to Jacobs to Wong Kim Ark and all the others in between, it all does fit and answers the definitive Article II question behind the true meaning of what a natural born citizen was meant to be.
We can find no other proof to the contrary. As I said before and got much flack for it, Obama’s only loophole is the bastard-identification. And sorry, but that’s because Story gave him that loophole.
The entire problem we have here is that the leftist kooks are getting well-meaning Americans to eat out of their hands by going the route of demanding a birth certificate from Obama to make it all “OK”.
It doesn’t make it “OK”. It gives them exactly what they wanted all along. People who are ready to resign themselves to essentially, birthright citizenship; which historically, isn’t what the Constitution is predicated on at all.
And for the record, no I don’t hold the right completely blameless in this. Guys like Levin, Hannity, Beck, etc., aren’t doing us a service by laughing off the “birther” issue. They should be explaining the truth of it and unjustified plan that it really is. Especially, Mark Levin, who is supposedly the constitutional expert. I’ll give Limbaugh a pass because at least he’ll admit he doesn’t know enough about the historical or legal aspect of it, but Levin should.
I’m not saying that all these guys don’t have other great material to absorb. They do. But they are not addressing this particular one and the reason is because you have so many on the right who ALSO use illegal immigration for political benefits and wouldn’t endorse those preaching the truth of any of this material for fear of losing votes.
It’s like when Rush Limbaugh was asked by so many why Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain (because honestly, that guy is political scum aka RINO). And Rush confessed that he knew the players in this arena for a really long time (and probably no one knows them better than he does) and paybacks are a part of the political game and Palin was playing the game, plain and simple. She’s a sell-out in my opinion. Your mileage may vary. She may be a good person at heart, but she played the game and I don’t apologize for that comment either, the asshole that I am. ;0)
And because so few address the issue or do their OWN historical homework, we see the fiasco that is accelerating in Arizona, which is nothing more than an extension of what Obama himself has done.
The political games continue, just as we just saw when Senator Kyl reiterated with what happened with his personal meeting with Obama recently; that Obama refuses to address the Arizona problem because he wants the republicans to play ball on immigration reform and until they do, he’ll demonize Arizona. When in reality, he’s demonizing the Constitution and so is everyone who runs around looking for birth on U.S. soil as a means for justifying that they are bona fide citizens and thereby, somehow, are even eligible to run for POTUS. They are neither.
The bald-faced reality is that when we lower the standards set from the beginning, and we have, we see firsthand the problems the Founders set out to avoid. And we will continue to suffer and lose our freedoms (that Levin loves to talk about so much) until we pull our heads out of the sand and address it once and for all. Until then, hello 70%+ tax brackets and goodbye freedom. Just remember that another 30% will make everyone the government’s slave. That’s the ultimate objective here and trust me, that objective doesn’t have a party name. Any party has those cretin types among them. That’s why the incumbents should be very afraid. People are sick of political puppets. You want change? Get rid of and ignore all of these people who usurped the Constitution because you can bet they’ll continue to do so after November, no matter what they say now.
Adam
Undead Revolution
Stop ragging on Levin when you listen to him every night and admit you’re just mad that he didn’t do any homework in this area and can’t discuss it properly. =p
Then think of his heart condition if he ever did get into it with people. Ouch!
– Steve
UR
Adam you stated:
“We have the definitive proof of the Vattel link to the Constitution straight from historical documentation.”
When will this critical information be released?
Thanks.
It’s been released. Just not publicly.
We released Ramsay and what happened to that? It wound up on birther sites and was cited in legal cases that drew attention to where Obama was born and is not what we intended. Perhaps when Mario Apuzzo stops doing that and commanding attention to his lawsuits that place importance on birther issues that cater to a leftwing distraction, we might be less paranoid about what others do with the research.
You know this. You post there.
-Steve
UR
Hugh and others:
Many have asked us where private discussions take place and where can have access to them.
Since most of the work is done, we are thinking about opening up the forums for people to take a look at what we’ve done, for archived purposes.
Where we really hang is in a private voice chat. That’s why you don’t see us here on the blog too much. When we can’t get together in person, it’s a handy and almost indispensable way to keep in touch and trade information and get into discussions.
Yes, we pay for that and it’s completely private, not a blogtalk thing or anything like that. All conversations are private. The voices are as clear as a landline telephone.
So if you’re interested in attending something like that, send me a
n message here (won’t be posted) where you can be reached. The forum info would be given out over voice channels.
No details about scheduling yet. The logistics of that server are not my area. I’m just putting it out there since we’ve gotten a lot of requests about where it is we hang out online.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
Adam / UR,
I too would like to gain access to the private forum. Is that still possible?
Thanks.
I’m actually originally a Freeper who met ZAPEM a long time ago there. Back when Leo Donofrio had his case before the Supreme Court. I was just on a chat and was talking to some guys from ZAPEM and the colleges and an interesting link came up from the Post & Email where Apuzzo was interviewed. I was appalled at all the information he stole and had the gall to act as if he did all this himself. So I posted this reply, which I doubt is ever going to be printed, so if you don’t mind, I’m reposting it here.
There’s too many people out there just coming into this issue who have no idea what has gone on from the start. But it’s when they go worshipping Apuzzo that really makes me ill that prompted this response.
You may ask, “Why did I post it?” I posted it because we don’t need competition and flagrant non-appreciation for what others have contributed. Particularly, we don’t need outright flame wars against Donofrio like I’ve seen Kerchner and Apuzzo do. It’s sickening to me and reeks of agenda.
But most of all, I ask how is a man who stole all the information he ever wrote and told one girl who told him personally of those complaints, “Everyone copies” as his excuse, ever going to get before the Supreme Court of the United States and have a clue what he’s even talking about?
This isn’t about starting another flame war. I didn’t do the research I’m even talking about in the post I made. But some days I sit back and watch this little game of egos being played and see that it’s actually AGAINST the people who worked really hard and it’s sickening.
Here’s my post because I know UR will post it even though Apuzzo won’t and I have a feeling that Post & Email won’t either.
But I guarantee, Adam, that what you just posted on Jacobs and the Vattel connection will be swiped as well without even one thank you for all the work you guys put into it.
Take heart, there’s probably a better place in Heaven for kids like yourself. You keep fighting the good fight. You don’t ask for publicity, but rather, you are loyal and appreciative to the people who enlightened you to dig up more. Unlike the people who smacked you and others in the face with no gratitude whatsoever.
I wrote this with one goal in mind – to show some appreciation to the people who really did do all the work and none of them is Post & Email or Mario Apuzzo. If either of these entities think it’s gone unnoticed, they are sadly mistaken. What’s even sadder is that they took this route of immaturity and lack of teamwork.
————————————–
Sorry, but there is nothing this Apuzzo has said that ZAPEM, Free Republic, Leo Donofrio, Paul Madison, Publius or UCONN hasn’t researched first and he just copied. In fact, all Apuzzo has done is repeat everything they have written and published it as his own research, which is garbage lawyering, IMO.
This guy and his “lead client” don’t work with any one of these groups or guys well. In fact, his client has dissed Donofrio so bad it’s a wonder no one else has seen the competition factor in all its sick glory.
And come on! Truth be told, Sallyven, you wrote an article yourself that is straight off the Undead Revolution Blog points and never mentioned where you got it either. It was UR who made the point about birthers being just as bad as birthright citizenship proponents.
The Post & Email needs to cut the bull here. You’re NEVER going to succeed if you continue to cut down the efforts of others and bolster these poseurs as if they are going to lead the fray. It’s not going to happen simply because guys like Kerchner and Apuzzo think it’s ok to copy years worth of work because it somehow makes them look intelligent. It looks nothing but immature to steal and then laugh in the faces you stole from! Had any of you known the years worth of research put into this stuff only to watch their names ground into the mud or slapped around in emails, you’d see another side to these elitist jerks.
What I see is ego. And until you start respecting the work you made your case off of, I’ll never give you the time of day. You simply don’t deserve it and you refuse to acknowledge one person who did a better job than you, namely Leo Donofrio, Stanley Klos and Paul Madison, to name but a few.
For the record, it was ZAPEM’s group who first brought to light of S.R. 511 to help Donofrio and also P.A. Madison who did the same with Vattel. Apuzzo did NOTHING but copy it all from them and many others. It was also ZAPEM who pointed out their blog The Chinese Exlcusion Act which after its demise was the rectification behind Wong Kim Ark. Didn’t take long for Apuzzo to take that ball and run with it either, huh? And it certainly didn’t take him long to find David Ramsay piece that Undead Revolution dug up out of the trenches of the college halls including many of the unheard of case law he cites as if he did it himself. He claims he put it in his appendix so the court wouldn’t have to look it up on the internet. It wasn’t on the internet! They put it up! He won’t tell you that though. And he certainly won’t tell you where he swiped all the rest of his talking points from because NONE of it came from him! He’s a poseur!
I don’t know why people fall over all this guy as if he is your savior. No one man or two is going to win a case in the SCOTUS, especially one who never researched any of it himself. Forget it. It’s not going to happen. That’s why Donofrio opened his blog to the public first. But one thing he didn’t do was forget the people who contributed to it. Apuzzo swipes it all and stamps his authorship on it and then re-presents it in a manner like he’s the teacher. He’s not! He got it all from various other sources. It’s about time he knocked it off with the holier-than-thou attitude and his commander client got off his high horse. They aren’t doing this issue any favors.
If ANY of you knew what the two of these guys have said behind these people’s backs, for no reason at all, you would be so easily led. These lemming comments are pathetic and ignorant of the true facts. NO MAN who is truly interested in saving the Constitution would have acted in the manner those two did. He fought against people who were on the side of the Constitution. He claimed to be one of them and started a suit. Only the ones who fought with the most were the ones he claimed to be on the said side of.
It’s all good. We got it into the right hands after all. No worries.
If you read my recent post on the blog, you’ll see that even I have reservations about those who claim we share common ground with.
I appreciate your honesty, but I think you’re getting too worked up for nothing. This won’t be straightened out the way you think it will. It will be straightened out in the voting booth.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS will have little to do with the final decision. But I think LD called that one a long time ago.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
PS: I enjoyed talking with you. We’ll do it again soon! ;0)
/snip
ramjet767, why you constantly come here to plug for birthers.org and your commander and his attorney? Or are you secretly another alt of these people that we’ve seen in the past and already know the names of? I could embarrass you and print that if you keep it up. Do you even read the discussions here or are you simply in it to lead a following into hell with your birther noise? Inquiring minds would love to know what prompts this stuff from you.
Oh wait! You do read this stuff because you’re another one who ripped off the 3 types of citizens only at the time of the signing of the Constitution (having read our posts at LD’s blog and our own) and tried to put some weird spin on it that birth certificates are somehow relevant to prove Obama is actually a natural born citizen alla WND and Berg and ad nausea charts. Ummm, no.
Real research doesn’t constitute compiling internet noise into a website or blog. Just because you have done just that doesn’t make you credible either. Seriously, stop looking for a hero in all of this while patting yourself on the back due to some psychological insecurity problem. I’m sure there’s a doctor for that, but I certainly can’t help you. I can only say to your face what most people are thinking and hope you start to get it.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
In all fairness to the P&E article by Sally regarding Obama’s birth certificate in how it exposes an underlying plan to get people to accept an erroneous jus soli (citizen by birth) mindset which is contrary to our history and founding law, she did in fact send us her drafts before printing it. So Bronwyn is a little harsh on that one.
In fact, Sally had sent it to others after we talked about it with her, including American Thinker, the Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College. I believe the word “hesitant” in printing it was putting it mildly. Too scared was my impression. When none of them would go out on a limb and print it, P&E did. Besides, we’re not journalists. We’re behind the scenes researchers and we knew exactly what she was going to say in it beforehand.
To be honest, Apuzzo has gotten under my skin in the past. Certain material I had posted to Leo he cried he didn’t want out yet. Of course, he never even knew about it, but that’s besides the point. So I went ahead and asked Leo to delete my research and he did, only to find it was blogged about by Apuzzo himself a week later. Very annoying kid-crap like that that made for bad blood. It was kinda funny when he deleted our Barry vs. Mercein citation though when called out about that one. I laughed. Then after several more similar incidents, we just steered clear of him because we felt he lost sight of what this is really about.
But now we have the Arizona illegal immigration issue that no one can deny is costing Arizona, as well as the rest of the country, unfathomable amounts of money, drug cartels and American deaths that taxpayers can’t ignore any longer as a result of bad legislation and ignorance of the Constitution’s intent. So it’s getting harder and harder to sweep under the rug. The analogies of both citizenship problems are a direct result of an ignorance of the founding history and Constitution.
In the midst of all this you have an unconstitutional president at the helm, who has a hissy fit over a Rolling Stone article quoting a few derogatory remarks by a General when the fact is, Obama and his ilk do nothing but make derogatory remarks that disrespect sitting Justices, ex-Presidents and Congress people all the time. When Obama and his buddies can do it all day long but when McChrystal does it he gets fired, you can see the dictatorship in action, even for people who voted for this guy. It should be a good warning of what’s in store for everyone when absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you think because you voted for Obama that you’re safe, think again.
The bottom line is the disrespect of the Constitution itself, the hiding of its history from the textbooks and classrooms, and an expectation that people are dumb and will hand over what’s left of their freedom without question.
It will never be one person or group that sets this country back on track. It is like Adam says that it has to come from the voice of an outraged, collective people who don’t stomp on each other. It’s always been as Michelle said from the day of Obama’s inauguration, too. That it wasn’t time yet. People had to suffer and see exactly what the revolutionists saw before they would understand the stakes. That every generation has a duty and responsibility to figure it out for themselves, even if it means learning it the hard way all over again. The lesson is that people tend to not appreciate what they have until they don’t have it anymore. But the realization has to come from the people themselves, not one person, lest you set yourself up in choosing another messiah, like people worshiped Obama as during his campaign.
I would caution people in doing the same thing when looking for a solution. Don’t look for a messiah to be your mouthpiece. There’s already a higher entity to look up to and it’s not Obama or a right-wing mouthpiece. They aren’t God and shouldn’t be treated as such. No one should be adoring or showering any of these people with undeserving praise or adoration like a golden calf conjured up out of their imaginations. To watch that happening is kind of dejavu-ly creepy, too.
Kelly
– UR
I remember when you first posted Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847). It was at Donofrio’s blog. John reposted it but it deserves repeating because as a lawyer, I appreciated it.
Excellent research on your part, but it was this post that caused the rift. However, I think it was more of an existing rift between Kerchner and Donofrio, not you. You were caught up in it because of your partiality towards Donofrio and where you saw the Birther crowd being led, unbeknown to them.
After reviewing Steve’s messages tonight, it’s a moot issue now since Kerchner’s case has been dismissed and unless Apuzzo has obtained a DC license, I don’t see an appeal to the Supreme Court happening unless other arrangements have been made that I don’t know about.
In any event, you may wish to revisit the archives and refresh your memory on the work done after the ZAPEM blog piece was done on S. 2678 and S.R. 511. There’s a clear history there that ties certain Republicans in with the election conspiracy that the public is still unaware of that relates heavily on how the perception of natural born citizenship was dishonestly portrayed. It would be worth noting and updating that blog so people understand who should not be re-elected in November and why. It’s time to bring that out. The elections are near and the information will be fresh in the minds of the voters. Let those politicians explain to the people why they called for a Constitutional Convention based on deliberate, false history to the people and then let the Democrats explain their part in it as well.
People need to understand, this is not a party-divided issue. Many from both parties were in on it and still are. When the people realize their interests were sacrificed for the friends of politicians, they’ll understand and halt this division, perhaps coming together on common ground for the interest of the country as a whole and put the blame squarely where it belongs.
Mike
(ZAPEM)
Yo! Adam? You forgot at least the Jacobs work link. I have the O’Reilly/Pearce video, Chitty’s translation of Law of Nations, Henry C. Ide’s review and Ramsay’s Dissertation (http://www.scribd.com/doc/28323742/A-Dissertation-on-the-Manner-of-Acquiring-the-Character-and-Privileges-of-a-Citizen-David-Ramsay) and David Collins that were put up on the net, but not Jacobs or the others. Jacobs at the very least needs to go up before you can start to prove that recap on domicile law/history.
Alicia’s workgroup on how well known Vattel was known to the average American household historical evidence that her group did is also invaluable and needs to be uploaded.
Just a reminder.
Malgad @ UR
You have it. Unless you mean listing the volume on the blog, then it’s formally called A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF DOMICIL, NATIONAL, QUASI-NATIONAL, AND MUNICIPAL, Based Mainly Upon The Decisions Of The British And American Courts. With Illustrations From the Roman Law and the Modern Continental Authorities by Michael William Jacobs (1887). I also found a copy on Google Books if people want to look at that as far as the internet is concerned:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dNMNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=vattel&f=false
Quite a thorough examination and the preface explains the intent of the volume and the necessity for writing one. Once read, there is no doubt that Vattel was relied upon – it was a matter of clear interpretation and we find no clearer example than this volume as far as that is concerned. Note the interpretation of domicil as it related to citizenship and the cases exemplified within that context.
Jacobs is significant in that it establishes the translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations, particularly “domicil” and where the ancient roots from the Latin are derived from and how it applied as far back as Roman Law. When it was applied to American, British and International jurisprudence, it became necessary to define and explain the particulars of the definition when relying upon it, which they were; hence the formal exposition by Jacobs.
To explain further, this was background material to not only further establish Vattel’s influence, but to show that there does in fact exist volumes that examined, as the preface notes, “the nature and ascertainment of the Domicil of natural persons“. Jacobs does not represent the entirety of that evidence, but it’s a significant portion as it defines translations and applications with painstaking accuracy. This book demonstrates the attention and detail put into the formation of this nation by brilliant minds.
This book is not for someone looking for keywords that avoid actual thinking. This is intellectual law and in-depth study.
– Steve
UR
Thanks for all the great early work and research you have done Adam & others at UR.
Many who have been paying attention and reading know, now, that the framers clearly knew of Vattel and relied upon his work for many of their ideas.
However, the direct and unmistakable link between Vattel and the term Natural Born Citizen as the framers intended it and from where they got it, appears to remain a tenuous link. That is, there exists no (known) writings or discussions from either the framers or those that debated and eventually ratified the Constitution from the original 13 (well, actually 9 to make it binding) colonies where they state Natural Born citizen = born in country to citizen parentS (or something very close to that).
I believe the Ramsay Dissertation we found along with the law reviews by Collins and Ide speak to what the framers meant. There are more complex writings that come after a time, and that I doubt few would even read let alone absorb, but you must take into account that there were no printing presses and there was also a huge fire that destroyed a lot of documents that are gone forever. We try to offer what makes the most brief sense, understanding that we have an audience with a very short attention span. If I had a dollar for every time I saw “TLDR” (Too long, didn’t read) comments to posts written on the internet, I could retire. 🙂
Nor, does there appear to be any discussions during that time (1787 – 1788 (or 1790)) where those involved may have discussed the term “natural born citizen” as it applies to POTUS elibility.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2512143/posts?page=144#144
Apparently it was important enough for John Jay to have a letter delivered to George Washington regarding that the term be included in the Constitution and whereby George Washington, who presided over those debates, felt that a positive and thankful reply was in order, no? It would be folly to assume that a term this important was interjected into the Constitution without discussion or debate as I’m sure you would agree (I read your blog – tyvm, btw). It’s also important to remember that the constitutional debates were done in secret with only a transcriber taking down unsupervised brief notes. Yet even in those notes, we see clearly what they read from and obviously had discussed, Vattel being among those being read. We did have, however, a much more updated method by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was discussed and I believe that’s a strong indicator of their recollections of the framers intent. We also have a plethora of documentation from newspapers, treatises and letters. I don’t know why you say there is none. I don’t know everything that’s out on the internet and I know I haven’t put out all we have yet, but I definitely know there is enough evidence to at least say that it doesn’t mean “born on U.S. soil” only. And I believe the study of George Washington’s requirements for his own army are an indispensable study in determining the framers intentions.
It’s almost as if everyone during that time clearly knew exactly what the term meant, but we in this generation don’t have undeniable proof that they all got their definition from Vattel and not English common law (somehow transposing a natural born subject to that of a citizen), which is of course ridiculous IMO…just saying).
How could all those people have had all those discussions and debates about a piece (AII,S1,C5) of something so very important (Constitution), and not seem to have had any written reference to any discussions on the term NBC or what it meant exactly? Amazing!
I personally have no doubt they all (not just the actual framers) knew the term to mean born in country to 2 citizen parents…and that they all got that definition and understanding from Vattel. It just all seems to be conjecture though. In other words, there is no “smoking gun” evidence that can be put on display for all those uneducated about the founding era.
With such direct proof, I believe it will help us move away from the “B.C.” distraction. But where is it? Lot’s of people have been looking, and so far, no public display of that evidence. Frustrating.
Anyway, glad to read more of your work and responses here. Thanks again.
Ramsay puts an end to the discourse that natural born subject is synonymous with natural born citizen, if it’s simple they want. It is Ramsay that UR developed the only three possible types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 1. Grandfathered former-British subjects; 2. Naturalized persons by law; and the “natural born” children of 1 and 2 who were the only and first natural born citizens of this country who inherit the status via their parents. There can be no other meaning behind it since Ramsay rules out “subject” meaning the same as “citizen”. Why do you think Ramsay’s Dissertation is being spread all over since we released it?
If it’s more they want.. they need to study.
You have to understand the reasoning behind the framers acceptance of Vattel as opposed to Locke. It’s much more than just concerns Article II. There’s a major turning point going on and one that was responsible for creating the first constitutional republic. One can’t just read Vattel in search of finding smoking guns that satisfy their elementary debates. One has to read Vattel and understand why the framers gravitated to his philosophy (generally) which advocated the sovereignty of each State as opposed to a one-world order. That was the issue and what was at stake here. Nations were looking to dominate and expand without regard to sovereignty or personal freedom or liberty. There was no such thing. Nations understood dominate and control and the methods and technology to accomplish that end were getting stronger.
Vattel foresaw this and warned about a world controlled under one set of laws, where there would be no choice in alternative societies to turn to. In fact, this is the primary reason why modern expansionists reject Vattel and wish his very name would fall off the face of the earth. They like the idea of one-world-government power. But a perfect example of why that’s a bad thing is Hitler. What would happen if Hitler controlled not just Germany at the time, but the entire world? There isn’t a Jew that would be left to talk about it. This idea of a universal Utopian society is a myth. But I digress…
So the framers basically embrace the Vattel philosophy over the Locke and this is further evidenced by using his model of sovereign State constitutions which would also allow for a joining into one united unit of non-conflicting laws, while not interfering in the governments of other Nations.
Taken into context, Vattel is the model that the framers construct a constitutional republic from. The American Revolution is the firsthand experience that convinces them that Vattel offers a structure consistent with their own beliefs vs. the Venetian Party which was prominent in England and threatening the colonies.
Remember, Law of Nations was published in 1758. The first english translation was in 1759. Benjamin Franklin acknowledges the good timing of receiving copies from Dumas in 1775 to meet the “circumstances of a rising state“. That’s a huge acknowledgment alone in favor of Vattel by Franklin. In 1776 the Declaration of Independence is signed. And for 125 years thereafter, Law of Nations was the most copied and influential book regarding international law. Why? Because in my opinion, an entirely new form of government evolved and succeeded as a result of applying many of its precepts.
If that’s not enough, James Duane (1733–1797), who was completely aligned with Benjamin Franklin, was a Revolutionary War leader, delegate to the Continental Congress, Mayor and Senator of NY, appointed as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention to discuss the ratification of the Federal Constitution, signer of the Articles of Confederation, lawyer and appointed by Washington as the first to serve for NY as the United States District Court Judge, was the person who supervised the studies of Alexander Hamilton, where Vattel turns out to be Hamilton’s major influence. Later, in the celebrated case of Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) where Duane is the presiding Judge and Hamilton winds up representing the defense, Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations. Duane concedes that there is an importance of the new republic abiding by the law of nations, and explained that THE STANDARD FOR THE COURT WOULD BE VATTEL. (emphasis mine) Read more here: http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html
I beg to differ with these people who think Vattel wasn’t around long even before the Constitution or somehow need it spelled out for them. The first day of the constitutional debates was in 1787, almost three years after Rutgers v. Waddington was heard. And what do the notes say who they read from? Vattel. Why would the existing courts, delegates and Founders hold Vattel as the standard, declare it as much, and then walk into a meeting for the purposes of revising the federal system of government with a Federal Constitution and ignore him? It makes no sense.
I could go on in a novel here, but then I’d have to print every scrap of evidence we have. We’re talking gigabytes of research here that I’ve honestly spent an enormous amount of time sending to people who we’re hoping are going to make some common sense changes to the existing BS going on.
I’ll tell you something true. Our goal has honestly changed. It’s no longer about trying to prove the obvious from history, as fun as that was. Because one thing we’ve learned is that every time you try to do that, there’s going to some disgruntled revisionist who doesn’t like it, twists your work and attempts to persuade the masses that the Founders didn’t have enough intelligence to be that deep and contemplate the hard work of completely securing a country while maintaining liberty and freedom for its citizens. It’s now about electing people who are strong enough to enforce the founding principles with legislation that no one can play games with ever again.
History is always going to invite questions since we can’t talk to the people who were there. But we can elect people who understand what they believed and experienced because they come from the same mold. When I heard tonight that a link was given out to another group where a congresswoman stated that Alexander Hamilton, aid-de camp to George Washington during the Revolutionary War, wasn’t eligible to be President, I realized just how downhill it’s gotten. These are people elected to high office who are ignorant of basic constitutional education yet swear to uphold said Constitution.
I tend to agree with Adam here. If people are looking for a hero or quick solutions, they’re being lazy. People need to start from within and trust they too can find answers. This country is sharply divided and it’s not a good time to be uneducated. People are going to have to search for answers themselves and elect those who can think without memorizing someone else’s past speeches and work.
Sorry for the novel. I actually had a lot more to share but I’ll get TLDR. 🙂
– Steve
UR
Thanks for sharing the “novel” Steve.
My take on this, is that there are so many more people out there (mainly “lurkers”) who are very interested in this information and don’t look at it as being “TLDR”. Many aren’t as adept at research as you and others interested in this.
I believe, it’s for the reasons that you cite, that the information on the founders and Vattel must be published and subsequently spread far and wide. Otherwise, how will the next generation of leaders (& those actually voting for them) know of the framers intent? They certainly aren’t going to learn it (or haven’t learned it) in school.
This sort of history lesson will probably have to come from sites like yours as well as others. Posting the information found and spreading it elsewhere. IMO, the risk is too high if we rely on others (including potential future politicians) to dig through the history that’s been forgotten. That information must be displayed here and elsewhere, so that people can have readily available access to it so that they may in turn share it with others.
The information/knowledge must be shared not only with some folks who you hope one day will be elected into office, but with those who will actually be the ones electing those folks into office. Otherwise, if some candidate runs on a platform that includes principles and ideas like those of the framers (& based, at least in part, on Vattel’s ideas), yet the people in their district have no idea of what they are about or why it’s important…then the potential for that “originalist” candidate to loose is unfortunately big.
Speaking of the different versions of Vattel…
I was recently able to locate a 1787 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2512143/posts?page=191#191
I’m sure you at UR have seen that one…but, have any of you seen a copy of the other 1787 English version printed for Messrs. Berry and Rogers? Is section 212 the same, word for word, as the White 1787 version?
How about the 1960 English version? Have you folks seen that one? What does it’s 212 say?
The reason I ask, is that…as you know, the term “Natural Born Citizen” didn’t appear in an English version until 10 years after the Constitution was written.
Of course, many of the framers could read French, just curious what version(s) they may have actually had access to during the Convention and how section 212 was written in those versions.
B.t.w. I know of many people who read your site, and would be VERY interested (as would I of course) in the other historical research you’ve managed to put together. Will you be posting more…or all of it any time soon? Do you need help with posting or disseminating it?
I’m hopeful that if the information can be made widespread, that a beginning to the end of this madness can be had…starting (in part) with the hopefully sweeping elections of Nov 2010.
Hi RXSID,
I’ll let Steve answer those questions, but you can read my post and see what you think. My concern is that putting out too much Vattel, of which there is tons of proof (my group did it, I should know), takes away from appreciating our founders own intelligence. I mean, these people were sharp and wrote brilliantly. Personally, I would be very sorry to see the focus back on Vattel when the beauty of the work shines from the truth of the American texts.
Samantha ~~
Undead Revolution
Research Area: Historical Literature read in the early American home.
Steve, just to clarify. I suppose you mean by “unsupervised, brief notes” that were taken during the constitutional debates, you’re referring to Madison who didn’t like Yates’ notes and then the other side who didn’t appreciate the fill-ins when speakers couldn’t write. I’m not being picky. I know you’re trying to keep things simple, but someone would distort that.
The only thing I would add is that Locke did have his following. Locke and Vattel agree on many major points and they disagree on others. It’s the interpretations that I believe caused sides to form.
But in all reality, I think the invitation that Washington watch over the debates was because they trusted him as the better authority overall. Many people like to draw the gratitude to Vattel when it comes to A2, but it was really George Washington who was the respected authority that the delegates were drawn to because he had the hands-on experience that Vattel merely talks about. I know Steve knows this, but I’m just adding for rx.
The reason why there is no debate on A2.S1.C5 to read, is because there was no objection to inserting that the president be a “natural born citizen”. They were all aware of Washington’s feelings toward having connections to the country and the fear of foreign influence. A2.S1.C5 passed without a peep out of one of them. They all unanimously agreed. Not one of them got up and objected.
Washington said little during the debates, but when he had something to say, they shut up and listened. Had Washington understood A2.S1.C5 to mean a jus soli interpretation, guaranteed you would have heard about it and loudly! They debated age requirements of the office and things of that sort, but they never questioned that the executive office required a “natural born citizen” and they were well aware of the criteria that Washington had set for his own army which was bars above what a “natural born subject” was in England. Everyone knew it back then. And everyone should know it by now.
Washington’s early criteria of being a “native born, settled resident of this country with ties to it and family connections in it” is reflective of the “domicil” clause in Vattel’s treatise. Jacobs clarifies the French translation so there can be no argument as to what Vattel meant by it. Story puts it to use in the law and he’s quoted in Barry v. Mercein where we’re not talking about the Chinese situation who appealed after The Chinese Exclusion Act was abolished! The founders knew exactly what they were talking about. They changed the word “subject” to “citizen” for reasons well-stated by Ramsay and others.
I don’t understand why people are blogging that we are saying we have the Vattel link. Yes, we do. But isn’t Washington, who had much more to say on this issue and formed this country, a lot more important? You know there’s a lot more that he had to say that Vattel didn’t that’s not out there where citizenship is concerned. And there’s a lot more others said, too. I can see I have a lot of uploading to do. But if I upload every reference I have to Vattel, does that mean that what I have on the founders will go unnoticed? I hope not!
I remember back when we practically had to beat over the lawyers’ heads to look to the Revolution because NONE of them were doing that. Not one lawyer who had a case in this eligibility issue said one word about the Revolution back then. Only Leo was receptive to the information. Even Apuzzo, when he jumped into the loop, had no idea what we were saying or trying to research. I recall the post where Zapem said they had to call him and tell him the key was in the Revolution! Right after Zapem did all the work on S.R. 511, too! OMG! What’s going on here? It was all about Vattel this, Vattel that, English Common Law and driving off a cliff of confusion. Telling people to go look up William Blackstone and other erroneous garbage that has nothing to do with A2. And them BAM!, where do we find the best answers? Sure enough, right in the Revolution with David Ramsay setting them all straight. I want the 6 months of my life back wasted on English Common Law by lawyers who don’t know what the hell they are doing and kick the ones helping them in the face!
The answer comes from the founding fathers, namely George Washington but there are many others. Vattel is only a book well-known to the American colonies that speaks to how they were going to manage after the whole ordeal in an effort to keep what they fought for.
Samantha ~~
Undead Revolution
Research Area: Historical Literature read in the early American home.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xChV1CO8KhcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ramsay+life+of+washington&hl=en&ei=b-UrTK6hOYKclgefwNGMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Samantha,
Thanks for expounding on the founding fathers. Very few truly appreciate their knowledge & wisdom. As for Vattel, yes his works were of importance, but they are but a mere speck in the 9 1/2 pages of references used by the founders as documented in the congressional archives. People hold onto the revolution with the English, but forget that it wasn’t the English who 1st settled America. It was the Dutch & the Swedes. The English didn’t come til much later and when they came, the common language of America was French. John Jay & Washington both were taught in French in grammer school as well as most of the framers that grew up in America. But especially Jay who’s heritage is Dutch and who’s ancestry can be traced back to those 1st Dutch settlements (New Netherlands). It is no coincidence that so much attention was given to the United Netherlands in the Federalist Papers because it was from that heritage that many of the framers had their ancestry in.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=024/lljc024.db&recNum=90&itemLink=D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_DwR3::%230240091&linkText=1
For all, I am a lurker, for rxsid, I am patlin at freepers. I have also been a silent contributor to Leo thru personal e-mail to protect the information that I had acquired until Leo 1st brought it forward on his blog so that the material would get the proper attribution it deserved.
Thanks for the Jacobs link. I am halfway through, and it’s nice to see this work bring all the others together, Dicey, Savigny, Phillimore, etc. I have been studying domicil for months and was quite confused as to all the different and yet basic principles applying it to nationality & political status.
Research on & I’ll lurk for new information to study. Our grandchildren are now home schooled and so this has been a great source to add to grandma’s library in order to help in their education of the true history of the United States.
In close I’ll leave with the words of St george Tucker, who didn’t write about Blackstone to promote his works as the laws of America. Quite the contrary. Snippet from Tucker’s Blackstone:
“That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2539663/posts?page=83#83
http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1e.htm
I, too, am a lurker. I think you do not give your readers enough intellectual credit.
If you post your Vattel info with the understanding of how much value you place on it with regards to other information you have and hopefully post, the readers will understand and take your recommendations to heart. At least, I know this reader will. There will be some who take away part and parcel, but you risk not informing the public when you don’t at least try to educate us.
My husband is a history buff, so we read the research together and discuss it until we feel we have a good understand of what is being said…even if we have to re-read and re-read. We realize just how important this information is. So, like I said, I don’t think you are giving your readers enough credit to understand both the context and the information presented.
About the McCain Jus soli natural born citizenship question:
McCain claims he was born on-base rather than in Panama proper. As a man who sacrificed much in service of his country, assume he is an honorable man and that this claim is true (perhaps his off-base hospital birth certificate widely available on the Internet is bogus and differs from what he showed the Congressional committee investigating his natural born status).
Some would claim that by E. de Vattel, to qualify as a natural born Citizen, one need only be born to citizen parents and be born free of any claim of foreign allegiance. Panama is a country that lays claims of allegiance by place of birth alone, so being born in peacetime in a Panamanian hospital would clearly disqualify McCain according to Vattel, but if he were truly born on-base, then he would be born within U.S. territory and his case would be less clear cut, at least according to Vattel.
To this I say look to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and its revision of 1795. The original stated: “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens […]” whereas, in the revised 1795 version, this was changed to just plain “citizens.” The “natural born” part was dropped. Why? The original Act must have been considered to have been in conflict with the Constitution (which cannot be superseded by a mere Act of Congress), therefore the revised Act informs us as to the Founders’ understanding of at least some of the intended restricted meaning of “natural born Citizen.”
U.S. controlled territories are not States, and McCain was very clearly born “beyond sea” and “out of the limits of the United States,” so by the guidance of the history of the Naturalization Act, he cannot be a natural born Citizen (even if he were to be “a child born in the Armies of the State” as defined by Vattel).
In the context of his time I suppose that Vattel would be referring to the entourage of wives and families that sometimes accompanied an army on extended campaign (including during an occupation). A modern day equivalent would be like when our troops were in hostile administrative occupation in post WWII Germany or Japan, whereas the situation in Panama seems more like a non-wartime business venture or like our troops being stationed by consent in a friendly territory or country today.
While at war the entourage is an encapsulated little bit of the home culture on-the-move. While stationed for long periods within the territory of a friendly foreign ally, the likelihood of mixing and absorbing the culture is much greater. The latter case seems, at the very least, like a gray zone situation more akin to a birth occurring while on an extended business assignment – I wonder what Vattel would have thought of that?
Also, there is the history of the Naturalization Act that perhaps adds further restrictions beyond Vattel (depending on what his true intent was). Clearly the Founders (for they were still active at the time of the Naturalization Act and its revision) thought that to “be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” even if born to citizen parents, was not enough to make one natural born.
___________________________________________________
NBC = blood + dirt : NO dual allegiances or foreign influences allowed, just born by Nature alone (not by statute or determination of man) 100 percent red-blooded all-American.
See the Washington Post article yesterday entitled “Jefferson changed ‘subjects’ to ‘citizens’ in the Declaration of Independence“?
Would love to see how they spin this one like they tried to do to Ramsay after alleging that “citizen” meant “subject” in the Founders’ minds. heh – Toss this one in the pile with the rest of the mounting evidence. This also seems to be all over Google for Independence Day. Search Results: http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Jefferson+changed+%22Subjects%22+to+%22Citizens%22+in+the+Declaration+of+Independence&btnG=Google+Search
“But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.
Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word “citizens.”
No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a faraway monarch.
Scholars of the revolution have long speculated about the “citizens” smear — wondering whether the erased word was “patriots” or “residents” — but now the Library of Congress has determined that the change was far more dramatic.
Using a modified version of the kind of spectral imaging technology developed for the military and for monitoring agriculture, research scientists teased apart the mystery and reconstructed the word that Jefferson banished in 1776.
‘Seldom can we re-create a moment in history in such a dramatic and living way,’ Library of Congress preservation director Dianne van der Reyden said at Friday’s announcement of the discovery.
‘It’s almost like we can see him write ‘subjects’ and then quickly decide that’s not what he wanted to say at all, that he didn’t even want a record of it,” she said. “Really, it sends chills down the spine.’ “
more… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html
Here’s the Library of Congress 7/2/10 article on it: http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-161.html
With a close-up of the hyperspectral imaging process here: http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/images/dec_citizens_panelized.jpg
Adam –
Undead Revolution
Adam:
Let me know about the private chat time. It is once a week or more? night time? day time? Saturdays? At any rate Wednesday’s are not good for me!
Thanks
Hugh
Dear UR:
Here is a link to the District Court case that became Perkins v Elg 300 U.S. 325 at the US Supreme Court. The District Court case says that Elg was a natural born Citizen, and it was confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Does this pass muster? And if so, why or why not? I want to reply to another’s position.
Thanks,
Hugh
http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=FDCCASE&cite=99+F.2d+408#fn600
UR:
I am satisfied that Elg’s father naturalized in Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother received her citizenship through the Expatriation Act of 1907 before Elg’s birth. Elg is a natural born citizen.
Thanks,
Hugh
UR:
Concerning Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (DC Cir. 1938), I now have another question. This case which uses this quote confirms that Elg was a natural born citizen, a fact confirmed in Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325. Furthermore, Elg’s father naturalized to the United States under the Naturalization Act of 1906 and her mother received her citizenship under the Expatriation Act of 1907.
Since Elg was born in America, and her parents became citizens before she was born, she is a natural born citizen. I agree with this logic. Both cases state the Elg is natural born, yet the real logic for the reasoning is muddled by the following:
We think the decision of the lower court is in all respects correct.
The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits
and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691,
in which he said:
“* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.”
Do you have an answer to this, preferably a court case that supports the fact the natural born citizen issue is determined by place of birth and citizen parents?
Thanks!
Hugh
I enjoy the many posts here, and compliment most of the posters on their well researched opinions on what the Founding Fathers believed and thought.
Of course, like many of our laws today, what the founders may have thought is lost behind two hundred years of jurisprudence.
And on this subect, the courts are clear: a “Natural Born Citizen” is a person born in the United States. Period.
So, like I said, the arguments here are great, but lets not pretend like they are current law.
The 1760 English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2512143/posts?page=227#227
What would be wonderful to find would be some colonist (esp. framers/founders) writings that directly tied “native” to “natural born.”
Still searching for direct written confirmation from the period that either Vattel was indeed to the source for the NBC requirement and/or NBC was explicitly defined as born in country to citizen parentS (written in the colonies prior to 1787).
If simply being born a US citizen were considered a sufficient qualification for Presidential eligibility then the Founders would have used the correspondingly simpler phrase “born Citizen,” yet they did not. They deliberately chose to add the further qualifier that one’s citizenship should fall naturally and exclusively to the US, that is that anyone who rises to the highest office of the land must be without question 100 percent red-blooded all-American. It is as simple as that. One must only recognize that words mean something and when it comes to “natural born Citzen” that each word must further narrow the meaning of the phrase as a whole.
Citizen by itself would qualify any citizen type, even naturalized non-native-born former citizens of other lands.
Born Citizen further restricts this set to only those who are a citizen from the moment of birth. Yet the Founders considered even this to be an inadequate safeguard.
Natural born Citizen qualifies only those who by the nature of their very essence can be Americans and nothing else. These are the regular salt-of-the-earth type of Americans who make up the vast majority of citizens and are the obvious object of the Founder’s intent.
You must ask yourself, “Why, when seeking to ensure the absolute loyalty of the Presidency, when such a large pool of citizens exist who are by their very nature born with exclusive allegiance to America, would the Founders risk the loyal stewardship of our fledgling nation by bothering to include the very small additional percentage of citizens born with dual allegiance? In light of the much greater extent to which the Founders were willing to reduce the size of the pool of citizens qualified to become President by the age and residency requirements they imposed, it is completely sensible that they wouldn’t hesitate to cull out the much smaller group of citizens born with split allegiances. It is a simple question of national security to which individual rights play no roll.
U.S. Congressman,abolitionist,”Father of the 14th Amendment”
John Bingham,confirms understanding & construction Founders/Framers used re birthright & jurisdiction
House of Representatives March 9, 1866:
I find no fault with the introductory clause which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,that 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
I just submitted these links on Apuzzo’s blog–to the amicus brief recently filed in the soon-to-be-heard (by SCOTUS) case of Flores-Villar on the subject of citizenship. Very interesting citations, especially beginning on page 34, which relate, not just to citizenship in general or even the 14th amendment, but to “natural born”:
Click to access 09-5801_RespondentAmCuIRLI.pdf
http://www.immigrantjustice.org/litigation-update/supreme-court/floresvillarbriefsfiled.html
Interesting, that the Bingham quote in: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-5801_RespondentAmCuIRLI.pdf
“All from other lands, who by the terms of
[congressional] laws and a compliance with
their provisions become naturalized, are
adopted citizens of the United States; all
other persons born within the Republic owing
allegiance to no other sovereignty, are
natural born citizens . . . [There is] no exception
to this statement touching natural-born
citizens except what is said in the Constitution
relating to Indians.”
Appears to be a (key) misquote.
From the Congressional Globe:
“all
other persons born within the Republic, [of parents] owing
allegiance to no other sovereignty, are
natural born citizens”
The LOC page is here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680
This is unrelated to history, but does have some relevance to George Washington’s warnings. This video will shock you and I warn you now, it’s full of profanity from the left.
You might want to start with PJTV’s version at:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=175&load=4259
and then brace yourself for this:
There was a first version of this video which YouTube took down, claiming a copyright violation. Usually YouTube merely knocks out your audio if that’s the case. In this case, they told them nothing and shut it down despite the fact that the same exact audio tracks are being used all over YouTube that are not shut down. Sound familiar?
I’m over at the ZAPEM blog giving them a hand with the YouTube situation. Seems the progressives are making threats now. Fun times! I guess they don’t want the rest to come out and think threats are going to stop us. Not happening. Cyas over there and I’ll be there for the meeting tonight. 😀
-Steve
UCONN / UR
Steve, The “rest” of what to come out? The rest of your research?
Thanks!
The whole damn thing behind making birthers run all the way to Kenya and back looking for a birth certificate, as if that meant he was a citizen. It’s all been nothing but a scam so people would:
a) Declare, “YES! If you’re born here, you’re definitely a citizen and can run for president too!”
b) Take up all your time fishing in water that wouldn’t hook onto what they were really doing.
The historical research was fun and it’s been fedex’d. But that’s not what has been going on here. Not by a long shot. You guys have been duped.
Factcheck.org wasn’t behind putting that doc up either. It was given to them after someone else put them up to it. ZAP’s group will be posting that later on today.
These people are so connected it’s not even funny. What they wanted to do was put you on a wild goose-chase so that you wouldn’t bother with the rest of what they were up to – like destroying the country.
And then when they got done convincing the country that birthright citizenship was a reality, that didn’t hurt their cause either.
Adam –
Undead Revolution
Very much so looking forward to the release of the historical research! Its fascinating having the window to the lessor known early American past, open up.
Just let Michelle go and let it out.
For the rest of you, here’s one mad as hell chick you don’t wanna piss off right now 😉
http://www.twitter/zapem
Some interesting links in that vent-off. I wonder if she’ll take the plunge and link the passworded URL. It’s all tied into The Daily KOS and she’s picking them off starting at the top. LOL!
Better hurry up and catch those before they scroll off her feed. What she’s saying is, you’ve been duped. The birth certificate appearance was planned. The Daily KOS was the first behind it. When you took the bait, the fix to label you as birthers was hooked. It was only a matter of time before they just made you into nutballs. It was all part of the planned set up. It also gets everyone on the same page not to pay any attention to the founding documents that say just the opposite.
Read the Little Green Footballs article and you’ll see how they complained about certain things missing from the BC. That’s when Factcheck.org jumped in… to fix the flaws and give it credibility. They even captured the raised seal which was noted as missing among other things if you read the comment section.
Obama has been a diary writer there since 2005 when he was a Senator. The link to the Senate blogs where that piece was also stored is a “page not found”, but it’s in her links pointing to The Daily KOS where it originated.
The Daily KOS is associated with Net Roots Nation, among a lot of others. Obama showed up at that, too. So did all the progressives. He set the warning down in his post that their tone was repulsive, so put on a good act and get those votes. That didn’t stop them with the Twittergate video as we all just saw. They just tried to cover that up with masks. So much for that advice, Obama. They can’t change. It’s in their blood. They suck at being anonymous too.
In order to win, they had to speak more like him….. the Master Manipulator. I’m sure that article was more of a teaching course from the little professor.
On the video with Olbermann, Markos makes a revealing statement. He not only knows about McCain’s predicament with being born in Panama, he comes right out and claims he’s not eligible to run for president. Not only is he well-versed in the subject, he knows what the real McCain’s BC says. No doubt he was well prepared to pick him off had McCain won. Then he was ready to make the birthers out to be crazies if they scoffed at what he presented to the public. But then he goofs by laughing on the show and stating that McCain is not a natural born citizen. Notice how Olbermann brushes past the subject quick and ends the interview. That’s because if McCain is ineligible or even ONE candidate is ineligible, the entire election is a fraud. And since Markos is the one to introduce the BC to the public, that makes him suspect #1.
It’s The Daily KOS, guys. They’ve been in this from the beginning. Get to work and expose all that you find there. Oh, and this is all tied in with the Juan Williams firing. He was fired because he works for FOX. The Daily KOS is out to take FOX off the air next, especially Glenn Beck. First it was the birthers, then it was the Tea Party, now it’s FOX. Oh and they want Justice Roberts impeached somewhere in there, too. It’s all a team effort. Neal Rauhauser knew about the plan. He’s known to tip us off about these things firsthand. He can’t shut up to save his life. I think he wet his pants scheming up the racist label #whitetrashmedia. By the way, I’m black and I didn’t give him any points.
If you’re going to do something, blog that story first because we have an election in 9 days. If you need the private report, filled with all kinds of goodies, I may be able to get that too. The media knows about it. They call it “too toxic”.
Truth is never too toxic. My guess is they didn’t get an exclusive and some conspiracy nutbags who Michelle trusted stabbed her in the back while she patiently waited on the media and tried to investigate more. She wrote wrote everyone in creation only to watch the great backstabbers blog it against her wishes and parade it around as their own exclusive, including to blogtalk radio, making a total mess out of what the ZAPEM group knows and wrote and the media called them “loose canons looking for credit”.
Our “friends” stabbed liberty in the back for an exclusive of their own when millions could have heard it if they didn’t have such big balls.
But let’s get one thing straight: No matter how many idiots were encountered in this drama, it will never take away from the truth of what happened in Twittergate, a name which ZAPEM chose, not these poseurs, or what The Daily KOS has involved itself in.
Now you might understand why we are so cautious here. These matters aren’t meant for egos.
– Malgad @ UR
Ah, what the hell, I have time and she seems to have stopped. You have to read these starting from the bottom. You’ll probably have questions even if you do Twitter, but the starter links are there. Remember that you have 140 characters to type in this little box on Twitter, so the typos are shortening techniques to them. You also have to be careful how you formulate your sentences so people understand what you’re trying to say. I understand it because I understand what’s going on, but your mileage may vary.
Zapem ZAP EM
@markos and the media sits back and does NOTHING about a FRAUD election b/c you’re ALL in bed w/ each other http://bit.ly/cNxjuK #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
U screwed yourself w/that 1MarKOS.. YOU planted that BC.. deliberately came up with #birthers TO changed THIS doc http://scr.bi/9yfLoX #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
It was MarKOS Moulitsas that said McCain wasn’t a “natural born ctiizen” .. Then WTF was this last election for? http://bit.ly/dsoqM0 #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
Want more proof?. here: Daily Kos Posts Obama ‘Birth Certificate’ – http://bit.ly/9qxebP – All PLANNED, including the #BIRTHER label #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
@TCOT_Talk When I’m done I’ll give you a book to write and it’ll be the truth, not that conspiracy CRAP that some egos like to write.
Zapem ZAP EM
@RedState Here, u forgot this picture of Chris Bowers with Nancy Pelosi in March, 2010 doing the same damn thing! http://bit.ly/aTpz2g #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
@RedState re: http://bit.ly/b1Yzp6 -It was Chris Bowers who sat w/Clinton at that meeting. SEO dir. for Daily KOS http://bit.ly/98BCrN #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
Barack Obama instructed Progressive on the Daily KOS in 2005 how to manipulate the American people in elections! http://bit.ly/bJQHFc #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
MarKOS Mouiltsas (from @thedailykos) FIRST planted that BC on the web, NOT Factcheck.. then SMEARED u with a #birther label on PURPOSE #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
Hey #birthers.. wanna know who 1st planted that BC on the internet?.. It’s was MarKOS Moulitsas.. just to be ABLE to call u #birthers #tcot
Zapem ZAP EM
@KLSouth F’ING CRAZY PPL! YES, I’M PISSED HOW THIS WAS HANDLED. cc: @ArlenWilliam (and don’t tell me to shut up either)
[She has it and I sent a note to send it to you. There’s a lot more. We should probably talk. Vent is probably the best due to the amount we get in there sometimes. Set a good time for you and we’ll do it. Thanks, Erica. – Steve]
Steve,
With reference to Juan Williams you said “If you’re going to do something, blog that story first because we have an election in 9 days. If you need the private report, filled with all kinds of goodies, I may be able to get that too. The media knows about it. They call it “too toxic”.
If you have access to my email, consider me interested. FYI, my home computer will be down for two days starting late this evening, but I will have my iPad to check mail, etc. in the interim.
[Excellent job, Erica! You might want to make just two clarifications:
1. Twittergate – The Democrats Hire A Twitter-Thug, which details how the Democrats hired Daily Kos bloggers to paint the tea party movement as racist, homophobic, extremist and every other pejorative you can imagine.
Correction: The Democrats Hire a Twitter-Thug which details how the Democrats hired Neal Rauhauser, a Daily KOS blogger, to paint the tea party … etc., etc. Neal Rauhauser owns a company co-Founded with Beth Becker named Progressive PST.
2. TeaPartyTracker.org was funded by George Soros and was created for the purpose of proving that tea partiers are extremists.
Correction: TeaPartyTracker.org is a domain registered by Blue State Digital, LLC, the makers who helped create MyBarackObama.com and is funded by …
I believe Judge Napolitano was the one who first stated that the TeaPartyTracker.org was funded by George Soros, although I didn’t verify that myself. I did verify the Blue State Digital, LLC. information. You may have verified something different and that’s fine.
3. You might want to add that PJTV.com (here’s the link for that – http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=175&load=4259) did a follow up story presented by Dana Loesch, who is the new editor-in-chief of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism website.
http://www.breitbart.tv/live-interview-dana-loesch-big-journalisms-new-editor-in-chief-12-am-et/
That additional url may let people view another source piece for clarification and also let them know about Dana’s new position with Big Journalism.
I also suggested to ZAPEM’s group they should tag that piece with all the Democrat names listed including stuff like “teaparty, teapartytracker.org, teaparty racism, Neal Rauhauser, Beth Becker, Twittergate, Youtube: Democrats Hire Twitter-Thug”. Especially since we have another piece for you on their strategy to dominate SEO marketing.
Thanks and great job! It’s a really cool example of how people should be working together because this is exactly how the left is going to be doing it. I like the extra work you put into it, too. Thank you! – Steve]
I have attempted to explain Zapem’s Twittergate article and video on my blog.
The Daily Kos, Twittergate & Obama’s Birth Certificate Controversy
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/10/daily-kos-twittergate-obamas-birth.html
Thanks for your suggestions. I have amended the text to more accurately tell the story.
Steve, I don’t know what Vent is. You guys are more technologically literate than me. If you contact me privately, I will give you my cell number.
geeze louise!!! this is even MORE than i originally surmised after a VENT!! forgive me–yet i am not on twitter so i’ve been playing *catchup* the hard way ;(
all i can say at this time is i’ve sent this to a few outlets to see if anyone else would run /it…to no avail. 😦 {{yea..2 toxic my tush!!!!}}}
so all i’ve been able to do in the interim is send it to my DB for MORE circulation.
THIS is un-friekin-believable!!! & HAS GOT TO GET OUT!!! w/less than a week left..the people HAVE got to know about this despicable scheme from the get go!
erica…went to your blog–great job!!!
& for the next 7 days we keep on keeping on–viral!!!
According to Mark Weston Janis, Prof of law at Mich & also a Fellow of Law at Oxford per his new book printed at Oxford in GB (yes I paid bucks but it was worth it & I can donate to my granddaughters home school library)
American Law & the Law of Nations 1776-1939 by Mark Weston Janis (2010 1st Ed)
5th opinion of the majority in the Dred Scott case given by Justice Peter Daniel(1784-1860) a Virginia Democrat used Vattel as his reasoning to deny citizenship to blacks born in America
Page 60 U. S. 476
Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:
“Nations or States are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their mutual strength… The authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic, or the State…
By this same writer it is also said:
“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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights…I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”
So here we have a liberal left justice using VATTEL to describe who the citizens of the states are. The Civil Rights act & the 14th were both born from this dreadful decision in 1856 & it goes to show that the libs new, birth on the soil did not equate to being a citizen, for a child to be a citizen at birth, must have been born to citizen parents. Janis’s book is a gem, loaded with history of internatioanl law & he shows all along the way the evolution of the law of nations & international law as the framework for American law as that was the only law suited for a federal union of sovereign states.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html
also found @ JSTOR the 1974 American Journal of Legal History, Vol 18…The Development of American Citizenship in the Revolutionary Era: The Idea of Volitional Allegiance
By the mid-eighteenth century, then, English concepts of subjectship and community encompassed a central ambiguity: on the one hand, society and government theoretically rested on individual consent and compact; on the other hand, the legal status and obligations of the individual remained natural, perpetual, and immutable. Across the Atlantic, circumstances almost immediately led men to attenuate and modify the concept of natural allegiance that was part of their legal and intellectual heritage.
Has anyone heard from Leo lately?
Do you know if his Chrysler clients will pursue a Quo Warranto action against Obama/Barry?
There is no record being made available to demonstrate that Barack Obama II has formally renounced his British Citizenship. The form he was born with does not simply evaporate The holder must take deliberate, positive action to sever this national tie
He, very likely, remains a British Citizen, to this day
Excellent research everyone.
UR –
I was recently revisiting your page:
https://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/category/american-revolution/
And under the section title: “HISTORICAL”, which is a fascinating read, you end with:
“… to be continued
-Undead Revolution”
When, do you intend to continue that piece?
Thank you.
We’re not allowed to post anything until this 2012 thing gets underway. Why tell them what to expect? Obama’s the constitutional “expert”. We’re sure he doesn’t need us to refresh his historical memory. He was a professor. He could teach this stuff, right?
The good news is that birther crap is now out of the way. Of course, he had to dispense with that nonsense because it would have stopped working in his favor. Keeping it going would have become nothing but a ball and chain for him.
My guess is he’ll start another tabloid scandal to avoid answering anything constitutional, but by then people will have been educated and start wondering why they were lied to.
-Malgad
Undead Revolution
Obama II was an “instructor” NOT a “professor” 😉
Tom:
Source?
According to the University of Chicago Law School:
“Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as ‘Senior Lecturer.’
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.”
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
Kamira – UR,
UCONN/UMD
What is going on with Zapem? I haven’t heard from several people in some time, and I’m missing them.
Thanks
They do voice communications mostly now. I know, I need to check the blog more often, but there’s always so much going on. And there’s always the worry that someone will post something we need to be careful about right now. So we try to stay away from being provoked. But I will say, the voice channel was hopping over the latest laugh with the birthers being blasted out of the water the other day. Donofrio says it best. Here’s his latest.
Maybe now these people will learn not to follow Donofrio-copy-cats and/or detractors?
The BC was nothing but a set up from day #1. Lots of people tried to tell you guys this. Markos Moulitsas planted the documented on the internet first. Deliberately. Then he passed it on to Factcheck.org because he’d rather do stand-up comedy on Countdown with Keith Olbermann to ignorant dumbasses who don’t care and don’t know their history.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/06/12/534616/-Obamas-birth-certificate
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/36654355#36654355
It’s really amazing how planned out the whole thing was and you really only need to read that article and then watch the end of the subsequent video that was fed to viewers on TV. The result of both was a public who took the bait and only asked for a better copy of a birth certificate and absolutely nothing else.
But now that that’s out of the way, the real fun starts. Obama, the constitutional “expert” gets to answer to the founders and we’ve got a ton of stuff we’re sure he’ll be familiar with and questions we’re sure he’ll be happy to explain. *cough* LOL
Let the games begin! I’m so glad this scam-artist is trying to run again. 😉
ps- I’ll let the ZAPEM group know you inquired.
-Malgad
Undead Revolution
I’d like to thank everyone at this web site(and those who commented in earnest) for your efforts in what I believe is an honest attempt to get to the truth. I stummbled upon your web site while attempting to educate myself about the Constitutional question that was being exposed.The “natural born Citizen” requirement langauge of this document is unique within the Constitution and this fact alone was an eye-opener as to the importance of the requirement. The sources that have been listed, along with the numerious citations from Law, have been an awakening of this Americans slumbering ideals of true freedoms.Again, thank you for taking the time for such an important matter. I hope in the near future you post an update to your research. The honest citizens at this site left no doubt as to the meaning of natural born Citizen in my opinion.Good luck in your future journeys of discovery.
It is the age old battle of good versus evil. I hope good wins the day. Best of luck folks! We appreciate your hard work and commitment and are behind you 100%!
In response to the question about Obama’s title at the University of Chicago Law School, he was a Senior Lecturer. He was not a tenured professor. I wrote the school, and that was the reply they gave me. I needed the correct title for an article for Jefferson’s Rebels titled “A Final Exam For Professor Obama”(http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/final-exam-for-professor-obama_24.html).
Even though Obama was an untenured lecturer, I generically addressed him as “professor” because most university students do so, and I was writing an open letter to him as if I was a student in his class. Students are blissfully unaware of a teacher’s official academic title. I know because of my own university affiliations.
More interesting, perhaps, than my open letter challenging Obama about his eligibility, are Obama’s 11 syllabi and final exams, which I embedded on my site on 4/12/10. If you want to see firsthand how the man thinks and to judge his writing style (compare to “Dreams From My Father”), these serve as a great vehicle for doing so.
Read “Professor” Obama’s Actual Exams Here
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/04/read-professor-obamas-actual-exams-here.html
I’m not sure what this has to do with anything. My point was only to say that the “professor” should be able to handle the questions that are going to come up. The next thing I know, someone is correcting me, saying that he was not a professor, but an instructor. Kam cites who confirmed his title as “professor” and now it’s about whether he was a “tenured professor”?
Trust me guys, we don’t care. They did give him the title of “professor” but in the larger scheme of what we’re aiming for here, it’s stupid to argue about. There’s bigger details to focus on.
-Malgad
Undead Revolution
My reply to ‘Where was Smiley when Shabazz N-worded Obama? by Gregory Kane’ http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/where-was-smiley-when-shabazz-n-worded-obama using UCONN material by David Ramsay.
Kane, you’re an idiot. Was this article purposely written for propaganda purposes because you sure don’t know United States history? Here, educate yourself!
Read http://www.scribd.com/doc/28323742/A-Dissertation-on-the-Manner-of-Acquiring-the-Character-and-Privileges-of-a-Citizen-David-Ramsay
David Ramsay, a founder and United States historian from the revolutionary era, clearly states people merely born in the country are inhabitants. They aren’t citizens. Know the first difference before you write because you obviously don’t.
The first natural born citizens of the United States were the children of the former British subjects who made the pledge that became known as Independence Day. You know, the day we celebrate also known as the 4th of July? The Declaration of Independence? Any of that ring a bell to you? Yeah, those people. Their children were the first natural born citizens because they were born of parents who could leave a political character to them that was not subject to the King or any monarchy.
Even the signers to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or those who took the pledge verbally aren’t natural born citizens. That’s why they had to be grandfathered into Article II of the Constitution. You know, where it says, “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.” The part in caps refer to the people who were born in the country but still couldn’t have been deemed natural born citizens because they were born subject to the King of England! Those people in caps are the first citizens, but they can’t be natural born citizens. Their children are the first NATURAL BORN citizens.
If you weren’t grandfathered in as a citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution, you had to thereafter be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to be President. Since all those people who were around during the adoption of the Constitution, are now DEAD, the only eligible persons now would be natural born citizens, children of parents who were themselves citizens.
Ramsay says specifically,
“None can claim citizenship as a birthright, but such as has been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason, no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution, BUT THIS IS CONFINED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE CHILDREN OF THOSE WHO WERE THEMSELVES CITIZENS.”
Obama’s father was never a citizen and his mother was too young to convey citizenship according to law. On Obama’s own campaign website, he stated he was born a British subject. Now he can’t even produce honest documentation about where he was even born. I’d say that’s three strikes against him. You look like a fool trying to cover for him.
References:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2335055/posts
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
https://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com
http://zapem.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28323742/A-Dissertation-on-the-Manner-of-Acquiring-the-Character-and-Privileges-of-a-Citizen-David-Ramsay
Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator – Official Proof 4 ( OCR / Optimizing )
Another expert’s opinion after Mr. Donofrio posted Ms. Tickly’s observation. This video is also posted in his comment section. Please take a look?
Dr. Herb Titus Says Most Important Question: Is Obama, Constitutionally Speaking, A “Natural Born” Citizen? Answer: No, He Is Not.
Titus has another audio we reviewed awhile back. He goes off on the birther tangent a little too much for me.
You need to understand something here. We’ve said this so many times before. It was the democratic groups who initially jumped on the birth certificate band-wagon. The reason for this was to have the people accept the notion that being born on U.S. soil made one a U.S. citizen. Philip Berg started it. The others who supported Hillary and not Obama jumped in with him. We saw it on radio shows early on. Clearly, these were leftwing people involved trying to mix with rightwing. They may seem rightwing to you, but they are not. They simply don’t want Obama in office and that’s the only reason why they side with the conservatives today. Or, they really do want Obama in office and mix with you for the sole intention of making you look like a jackass.
There are people who manipulated the entire idea of birth-certificate-satisfaction, as I call it, just to lay down smears. Once they were able to convince people that all that was needed was a birth certificate, they simply produced one. Then they mocked the people who were skeptical of its validity, coining the term “birthers”.
In the coming weeks or months, I’m not sure when, we’ll tell you the real history behind how they planned producing that birth certificate. They did have it well planned beforehand. Back in 2008 and the ZAPEM group caught who initially it was passed to for internet use. It was not Factcheck.org who alleged they originally “spent time with the birth certificate” and then passed it to BarackObama.com.
As Jefferson Rebels was kind enough to tell on her blog, on behalf of ZAPEM, it was Markos Moulitsas of The Daily KOS who was was first person of choice to disseminate the BC. But someone decided against that and probably believed it was more credible to have an organization which called themselves FACTCHECK to do it and so they did.
Be assured we plan on taking them all down very soon with the facts of who was behind all this from the start.
I would suggest you guys get out and start doing some digging yourself and blogging your findings about that socialist group that is determined to take down this country and smear anyone who stands for it.
We’ll help you out with the details on how their network is operating, but it’s up to you guys to get the word out.
You may want to go back and read post #196 where Malgad explains ZAPEM’s frustration. Then follow the links, especially to Jefferson Rebels Blog.
-Steve
UR
Founder Robert Yates on our Constitution, the law of nations, quitting one’s citizenship (1776), natural born Citizen and Vattel, published in the 1797 Hall’s Wilmington Gazette:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2512143/posts?page=361#361
RE. On February 23, 2010 at 2:35 am MaryBeth said: History Buff is known as TollandRCR on Polijab.
Hello to all the kids at University of Connecticut. I heard a rumor today. The rumor is that the ID of TollandRCR you mentioned in your site is alleged to be the notorious far-far left socialist Obot leader of some of the smear & defame & mock the constitutionalists and spreaders of disinformation sites such as TheFogBow, PolitiJab, and RealityCheck on the BlogTalkRadio site is probably Professor Richard C Rockwell of the University of Connecticut? Since you all are students at the University of Connecticut, you should approach him and ask him to confirm or deny the rumor.
RJ
That may be him or it may not be. The person who posted here was behind a proxy, obviously to avoid identification. I wish I could help you more, but know that we’re definitely looking into it.
Sure, we’re very aware that there are many who don’t appreciate what we’re doing and try to convince readers that our work is incorrect, but consider the source. The socialist directive for a long time has always been to tear down what this country has established. It’s the only way to introduce their failed concepts. It’s up to the reader to be able to see through that and question why they are afraid of us and lying.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who appreciate what we do and are helping get this information to the people who can do something about it. They won’t stop us. We have the numbers and the truth behind us.
-Steve
UR
Are you people even AWARE that History Buff aka TollandRCR is a Professor at YOUR school, UCONN? I did hear that this group was from UCONN, right!
Really now? Then maybe you’d like to answer why a professor is running around behind a proxy to post here?
Is this some RESEARCH you are doing on our TAX dollars?
You pay for our educations? Our parents would love to know that. Please tell us when to expect the checks.
Professor Rockwell at UCONN is TollandRCR!
http://www.youtube.com/user/FogbowObotsExposed
No proof of that exhibited, but what’s your point dude?
-Steve
UR
NO censorship now!!!!
Is the Undead Revolution group done?
No.
Or, will there be additional history revealed in the near term??
“Near term” is the key phrase there.
-Steve
UR
Love it!
Keep up the good work.
Who is Sallyven working for these days?
You might also want to whip off an email to Leo. One of our own has just been threatened and there seems to be a whole lotta criminal swatting going on.
Hi Neal Rauhauser! Or should I say you’re latest reincarnation on Twitter @stormpeedo? You cowardly wimp. Let’s refresh the publics memory of the lying sack you are just for starters here, shall we?
http://www.pjtv.com/s/GE4DOMQ
The Tea Party Tracker has now also reincarnated to AttackWatch. Not unique and yet another failure.
Kiss my black ass you bigoted phony.
-Malgad
Undead Revolution
.
Hi Malgad. I’m still here. Contact me if I can be of help.
UR team,
Please check this out:
“Protecting Obama: Congressional Research Service Releases Another Error-Ridden Report on Natural Born Citizen Requirement” Tuesday, November 29, 2011
In part, it says:
“The Congressional Research Service releases another error-ridden report on the natural born citizen requirement, by legislative attorney Jack Maskell. The document is full of contradictions. (Maskell writes, “There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.” Two sentences later he states, “…the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century…” If there is no controlling case law, how can the issue have been settled law for more than a century?) Maskell intentionally treats the terms citizenship at birth and natural born citizenship at birth as equivalent, when they are not. Predictably, Maskell misinterprets and misstates the Supreme Court cases United States v. Kim Wong Ark and Minor v. Happersett. Further, Maskell ridicules those who rely on the use of the term natural born citizen in Emerich Vattel’s Law of Nations, arguing that an English translation of the book was not published until after the adoption if the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers did, in fact, rely on Vattel but, unlike Maskell, they understood French. (Maskell apparently believes that history is relevant only if written in English.) ”
Continued:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/11/congressional-research-service-releases.html
Please tell us that you have that additional information (that show’s what the natural born Citizen requirement means) you’ve stated you have, ready for release very soon?
The subversion of our history, laws and soverignty must be exposed. We need the truth and the factual records to back it up.
Will you be releasing information soon?
How does Maskell account for Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847) then? We gave that case to Leo way back when we found it. Don’t tell me there isn’t any case law. What kind of crap research group made that statement? http://supreme.justia.com/us/46/103/case.html
Look, there’s two lines of thought here: Common Law vs. Law of Nations. There always has been. For anyone to say it’s always been understood one way or the other is talking out of their ass. The simple truth is that it’s never been settled. Both the common law interpretation and the law of nations have been applied, back and forth, many times over. Barry vs. Mercein in 1847 favors international law. Lynch vs. Clarke in 1844 swings the pendulum the other way. It just always depended on who was applying it. The law reviews directly after the Wong Kim Ark case prove that it’s never been “settled”. That was the entire reason for giving the bulk of our research to those who are supposed to make decisions based on interpreting the Founders’ intent.
I can give you docs, but I’m telling you right now they will confuse you. There are things that happened that tilt the scales back and forth, in both directions. Our group’s personal opinion was that the data tilted in favor of the law of nations as to intent of the Founders with regard to the Constitution. So if you took all the data and weighed it, it would land in your favor. And the deciding factor lies with an understanding of this phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. But we’re not the Supreme Court. We’re also very mindful of the fact that certain cronies are going to take one doc and raise only that as their weapon against you. In a word, they aren’t qualified to interpret what suits their fancy and vice-versa. Neither are we at UR for that matter. If we were to choose one person qualified to interpret these old docs, at least for public consumption, I’m sure we’d all have to agree it would be Leo.
In any event, I’ll toss these out to you to show you exactly what I mean about the pendulum. These are directly from the time period after the Wong Kim Ark decision. They’ll be on our scribd account where we’ll put more. Right now, I don’t want to overwhelm people. This is an example of the discord you’re going to face and illustrates how far back this divided thought goes. It in no way, however, demonstrates what we’ve neglected to put out there. It’s simply to show you that once you do, certain people are going to cherry-pick it the way they see fit. The first document at least says, you can’t do that because this removes all doubt that anything has been “settled”. Wong Kim Ark didn’t settle anything. It confused more people than it did enlighten them.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74254679/Citizenship-in-the-United-States-Under-the-Fourteenth-Amendment-Woodworth
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74255662/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74255864/Citizenship-by-Birth-by-George-D-Collins
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74255762/Citizenship-by-Birth-Another-View
But understand one thing. No matter how much we put out there, the ultimate problem is going to be where the doubts are removed. It may be the SCOTUS but ultimately it’s probably going to wind up as an amendment. That would require the Congress to update matters and don’t think that they don’t know it. They do. The Congress knew damn well they had a problem and ZAPEM’s blog is literally a congressional confession that they did know and always have known.
Careful who you vote for in the next election. 😉
P.S. heh, someone started reading those things before I even had the chance to post this.
– ADAM
Undead Revolution
Thanks for the information Adam. Will digest and share with like minded friends and associates.
As for Common Law vs. Natural Law…isn’t our Common Law based in large part, ultimately, on Natural Law?
I believe James Wilson (& other founders) as well as Blackstone himself (& other English jurists of the time) stated that Natural Law is part of the English Common Law as well.
“The law of nations, in its full extent, is a part of the law of England.259 ”
“We have already seen that, in England, the courts of common law, in cases, to which the law of nations, and particularly in cases, to which one great branch of it, the law of merchants is applicable, have made approved application of that law, and have received it, in its fullest extent, as a part of the law of England.”
http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson1.htm
“The common law of England, says my Lord Coke,366 is a social system of jurisprudence: she receives other laws and systems into a friendly correspondence: she associates to herself those, who can communicate to her information, or give her advice and assistance. Does a question arise before her, which properly ought to be resolved by the law of nations? By the information received from that law, the question will be decided for the law of nations, is, in its full extent, adopted by the common law, and deemed and treated as a part of the law of the land. ”
http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson2.htm
etc.
Perhaps that’s why they have been interpreted back and forth. They are, essentially, integrated with natural law being older…the foundation if you will.
b.t.w. I suspect that what you’ve just “released” here recently, is not all that you have. Saving the rest for a future time?
I said it wasn’t the bulk of what we had. We have thousands of docs. I put up 4 relevant to what I was talking about and more tonight out of random picks in the little time I had before bed.
When I check with Steve, I’ll have more.
– Adam
Undead Revolution
A poster over at free republic found a line from Shakespeare’s Henry the V. “were all thy children kind and natural?”
Seems a college professor named Brainerd Kellog in the 19th century wrote natural and kind have the same meaning, originates from A.S. Gecynd which means race/tribe.
The question who are the natural children? Did the Founders place a strict limit who could be president to Anglo Saxons?
Seems to match with Vattel’s the naturels..the preamble “we give to our posterity”
Keep digging..many will discover they are not natural born citizens..even their parents were citizens.
to poster “e vattel”:
You’ve neglected to place the matter into proper perspective- It’s called ‘CONTEXT’, mon ami–
“kind” would refer to the species; ‘citizens’ –in this case U.S. Citizen(s)
natural~ THE CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANISMS(eg U.S. citizens) ACCORDING TO RELATIONSHIPS BASED UPON DESCENT FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR
1 NON-U.S. CITIZEN{Barack Obama Sr} + ONE U.S. CITIZEN {Stanley Ann Dunham} ≠ ONE ARTICLE II ‘natural born Citizen’
≠ ~ does not yield
natural~the REJECTION of ALL explanation that makes, allows, or calls for exceptions
Somewhere read..perhaps at freerepublic..since the states are sovereign the law of nations can apply apply to one another.
For example the state of Mississippi..can use the law of nations regarding citizenship in chapter xix toward New Hampshire’s ballot commission.
The key to natural born citizen is the meaning of natural.
Why did the Framers use this term…why did Franklin…Shakespeare…John Jay…Washington understood its meaning…Vattel uses the naturels….Chaucer..uses natural..
James Wilson..wrote after the completion of the Constitution..”we returned to the ancient Saxon customs”
What does Shakespeare mean…”were all they children kind and natural?”
Who are the natural children…who are the natural born citizen children..
To the many who read this esteemed forum..
When you know who are Shakespeare’s kind and natural children..
you will have the meaning to natural born citizen…the definition that has eluded scholars for 100’s of years..
Vattel tells us..Professor Kellog gives a hint….
Natural does not mean what y’all think it does..
Adam wrote:
“How does Maskell account for Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847) then? We gave that case to Leo way back when we found it.”
Someone pointed out to me that the salient point in Barry v Mercein was not an opinion or ruling of the court. It was the plaintiff’s attorney’s argument to the court, which the court rejected.
“4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during its father’s temporary residence therein,-twenty-two months and twenty days,-notwithstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitated by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. ”
If you are already aware of this, and see some further benefit to citing Barry v. Mercein, then please ignore my post.
It’s a ruling based on international law and goes directly against what the alleged interpretation of common law suggests as presented to that court.
It is one thing to have a common law interpretation based on what people have long been accustomed to. It’s another to have that interpretation redefined by the substitution of the word “subject” with “citizen”. That was the intent of the Founders or they would have called themselves subjects of the United States. They didn’t. That was the ruling this court upheld, international law, not common law.
With the Declaration of Independence came a new meaning, not an old one. People can cling to the old definitions all they want but they can’t discard the fact that a new definition was articulated both in the constitutional debates and the congressional record. There is further historical proof of that with Ramsay as we have also shown. As Adam noted, the 110th Congress even knew about the problem.
The real question here is what are you going to do with this new definition? Sweep it under the rug and claim it never happened? It did happen and we’ve proved that it happened, why it happened and we are continuing to prove it by releasing documents now. What the dissenters have to prove is that it didn’t happen (they can’t) or that it’s false (they haven’t done that either).
What the common law advocates want to say is that British common law is the meaning behind “natural born citizen” and point to the old British laws as their proof. What they fail to answer is why there is a subsequent definition based on international law of nations and discussed at length, agreeably, by the Founders. Prior to this, these dissenters also claimed there was no proof. They were wrong. There is plenty of it.
If the question here is a matter of definitions, they can’t sweep one under the rug and shine the light on the other they want. Both definitions are part of history. They asked us for proof of that and we gave it privately and now we’re starting to put it out there publicly. Why? Because it happened and that’s the truth.
– Steve
UR/UCONN
The fatal flaw with the argument that ‘natural born Citizen’ is equivalent to ‘natural born subject’ is that this interpretation would indisputably also make Obama a British subject from birth. How can a British subject be a ‘natural born Citizen’ of The USA?
The only proof you need for the definition of Natural Born Citizen is this video, which is straight from the Framers’ mouths.
:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen:
[…] research and analysis displayed in any pertinent article I have seen has come to us via “The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen,” (September 6, 2009). That is the work of a collection of activists and law students calling […]
Hoping to learn if all is OK with this site. Much is missing.
Prayers for protection and continuation of all your good
work.
The KEY to the definition of Natural Born Citizen is in the the Congressional Debates leading up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment!
THIS IS OUR SMOKING GUN and is sourced by the Library of Congress!
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen:
UR:
I have found the following on September 9, 2009 concerning Ramsay and William Smith. I am trying to separate wheat from chaff.
September 9, 2009
Correct. William Smith was his name. They tried to make it sound like political sourgrapes, but Ramsay had already written too much on the subject to expect an educated person to believe his gripe was merely political competition. Had Smith not played hostess to American officials over in France, they wouldn’t have let him slide. They did confiscate his property and he admitted to that. It’s a great research case because no one argued with Ramsay on the merits of citizenship. It was Smith’s excuses and alleged attempts to make the journey back to his native country that gave him a pass. Some citizen responses to the local papers at the time attested to Smith as being a weasel.
I want to compare Madison response on the House floor to “no one argued with Ramsay on the merits of citizenship.
Thanks! Is there another site UR posts to?
Hugh
Alright, I don’t think it’s wise to get caught up in the election brouhaha which prompted Ramsay’s Dissertation. It’s not relevant to what Ramsay states with regard to the criteria of citizenship.
I’m going to make that caveat only because I see that since we released that Dissertation to the Internet, many have taken it and harped upon the election dispute in an effort to discredit the meat of the document. They’ve even gone so far as to try to personally portray the man in a bad light using a slanted moral compass they can’t even hold a candle to morally. So goes the way of politics.
For our purposes, the election dispute and political agendas behind the story that gave birth to the Dissertation were irrelevant. We were after what a Founder had to say about citizenship as close to the time period as possible from a source that was indisputably credible. We think we did that with the release of just that one document.
Thomas Jefferson received Ramsay’s 1600 or so pages on American History without objection and much appreciation. Ramsay was married to Henry Lauren’s daughter. He was not an illiterate historically or politically – he was there and an integral part of the hands which sculpted out the framing of the country. His writings are therefore absolutely relevant to be considered in what citizenship entails. He’s a Founder. I believe Madison was one of the dignitaries that Smith served abroad as were many of the others involved in that vote. Take into consideration that slavery was a big issue as well and Ramsay was anti-slavery. There were political agendas involved where the voting was concerned. That doesn’t take away from the fact that Ramsay was still, in his own right, a valued and highly respected icon of the times and his writings were the de facto standard of historical education for many decades thereafter.
The situation with William Smith says this –
The Charleston district’s election was the most bitterly contested in the state. In terms of biting ad hominem attacks, it was the most personal of any campaign for the First Federal Congress. Two days before the polls opened on 24 November, Ramsay publicly disputed Smith’s eligibility under the Constitution’s seven year citizenship requirement. The attack ignited a brief but acrimonious newspaper and broadside debate over Smith’s patriotism and Ramsay’s antislavery sympathies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=fcsmith
The contest was over the “seven year citizenship requirement”. Understanding that is crucial to context of the election debate but not necessary to understanding the other points of citizenship made within the Dissertation.
We read Madison’s take on things. We also took into consideration his agenda and tried to separate the necessary components of the Dissertation, especially that which no one argued about. If you’d like to add your take, please do. Share away!
-Adam
UR/UCONN
ps. I’ll leave it to Steve to answer your other question.