I got the following email on the 10th, the day I left for vacation and only saw it this evening. I told this fellow in previous emails that I didn’t have time to deal with individual cranks, and that he should post on the blog.
This is basically a regurgitation of Apuzzo I think (although I haven’t read Apuzzo lately).
You’ve scoured the Internet and cannot find a single thing you say that backs my assertion? You must be blind indeed. Seeing that you act like a child then I shall treat you as one, doing YOUR homework since you admit lack of intellectual capacity. At the end of this rather lengthy letter I have some questions for you. I expect you to provide answers to MY questions.
First I shall DESTROY your argument with the English common law itself and play off YOUR suposition. I had originally thought there were no distinctions to be made in English common law but luckily… I was wrong. In the English common law itself there were laws that were created for the sole purpose of EXCLUDING those who were NOT born in England by English ParentS – again, plural.
In 1701, the English Parliament passed a law excluding, from public office, foreign-born persons of non-English parents:
…no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen), except such as are born of English parents, shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him; (Act of Settlement, 1701)
So there in the English common law of 1701 it is well defined, THE CONCEPT that people who are NOT born to parentS cannot hold high office! The concept of naturalization and differentiating between various types of citizens is there as well. You have no argument. Even in the English common law the concept of excluding certain people is VALID and was known at the time.
The phrase natural born citizen also appears in Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book1, Chapter VIII. There were English translations available at the time, although many of the Founders read Latin as well; Guthrie 1756, Patsall 1774.
The phrase Natural Born Citizen was NOT something alien and foreign and new at the time. And there is Vattel, even in the early French saying: 212 Citizens and Natives-Vattel “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Vattell “As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights.”
The Founders were well read, the Vattel of 1758-60 is quite clear in it’s meaning and intent, whether that’s in French or English. Earlier writings in the Bible and Aristotle on the concept of nationality also show that children of citizen parents inherit their father’s nationality.
This concept didn’t just pop out of nowhere as you assert. It was known. It was talked about. It was discussed and it is NOT an unreasonable concept in that it’s purpose is to prevent traitors from sneeking into office.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –”George Mason
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.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
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 which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
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”
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. Madison’s notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington… ALL of them in agreement that the INTENT behind their words as they wrote them was to prevent a foreigner getting into national government.
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so would leave the child with competing allegiance demands.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”—Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
“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)
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.)”
John Bingham, “father” of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this: commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
Here on this link you will find the US government NOT using English common law but Vattel’s Law of Nations http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?linkurl=%3C%linkurl%%3E&graphurl=%3C%graphurl%%3E&friend=%3C%20riend%%3E&court=us&vol=120&invol=479
“It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains, and consequently can never be construed to violate neutral rights, or to affect neutral commerce, further than is warranted by the law of nations as understood in this country.”— Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 US 64 – Supreme Court 1804 (Chief Justice Marshall)
Between 1759 and 1834 there were ten translations of his (Vattel’s) work in England, and from 1796 until 1872 eighteen translations, or reprints of translations, published in the United States.
Vattel was by far the most quoted legal source in pleadings in American cases, by almost a factor of 4, between 1790 and 1820. (Nussbaums Concise History of the Law of Nations, 1962).
Most lawyers and every framer understood Vattel during the Continental Congress and particularly afterword because Vattel served as the principal reference in the writing of the Constitution. Jefferson taught the course on Vattel beginning in 1779 at William and Mary. Madison was President of William and Mary, and future chief justice John Marshall a student. Vattel was used at virtually every college offering legal studies since it is by far the most authoritative source of maritime and international law, in addition to providing the structure for the U.S. government.
One of framers, a President between the Revolution and the ratification, Dr. David Ramsay, restated the definition perfectly clearly in an essay after he had returned to his medical practice. It is Vattel’s definition, and there has never been another. (You can find the Ramsay essay in the latest appendix to the Kerchner/Appuzo appeal at http://puzo1.blogspot.com )
Thus far, no court that I know of has ruled that Obama doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen. What they have ruled on is whether the lawsuits have “standing.” In order for a lawsuit to go forward you have to show that you have “standing” that you have been harmed in some manner. So to this day, the question has not been broached in the courts on NBC alone.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/02/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789/ — founder and historian Ramsey
Two centuries’ growth of American law, 1701-1901, Volume 1
Author Yale Law School
Publisher Scribner, 1901
“When our government took its place among nations, its statesmen were guided by the treatises of Grotius, Barbeyrac, Puffendorf, Bynkershoek, above all, Vattel. 1 Vattel was used 1792-1795 by President Stiles at Yale for instruction.” Pg. 516.
“In WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE, President Lyon G Tyler states that the Law of Nations was taught first by the Professor of Moral Philosophy in 1779, and continuously since the text book being Vattel until 1861. This seems to have been at Jefferson’s suggestion.” Pg. 518
John Jay’s home library contained Vattel.
The homes of America, Editor: Martha Joanna Lamb, Publisher: D. Appleton and company, 1879, Original from the University of Wisconsin – Madison
“One division [Of the library in the “Bedford House” of the 1st Chief Justice John Jay] contains the favorite authors of the Chief Justice, weighty folios of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel and other masters of the science of international law, standard theological and miscellaneous works and the classic authors of antiquity. Pg. 108.
The U.S. Supreme Court has, on occasion, used the word “citizen” in reference to individuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizen parents. Such individuals were U.S. citizens by law or by naturalization. But the Supreme Court has never referred to such persons as natural born citizens. In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. Miss Elg was born in the United States in 1907. A year before her birth, her father became a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother acquired U.S. citizenship through marriage. Thus when Miss Elg was born, both of her parents were U.S. citizens. Also, in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), Justice Gray quoted an article, by Horace Binney, which used the term “natural born” in connection with a U.S.-born child of a U.S. citizen, but not in connection with a U.S.-born child of an alien. In Binney’s opinion, both children were U.S. citizens by birth, but only the U.S.-born child of a citizen was labeled “natural born”.
In August 1787, Jay’s recommendation was accepted. The presidential eligibility requirement was changed from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen”:
It was originally proposed in the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications be a “citizen of the United States.” It was so reported to the Convention, by the Committee which had it in charge, on the 22nd day of August, 1787. It was again referred to a Committee, and the qualification clause was changed to read “natural born citizen,” and was so reported out of Committee on September the 4th, 1787, and adopted in the Constitution. (Long, p.7)
The framers of the Constitution were concerned that a foreign power might raise a “creature of their own” to the Office of President:
Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of Republican government, might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68, March 14, 1788, emphasis added)
“FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Constitution Of The United States, 1799. By the House of Delegates, | January i, 1799. | Whereas it is highly expedient that every constitutional barrier should be opposed to the introduction of foreign influence into our national councils . . . Folio (13 by 8), sheets, uncut.
Contains the Resolve of the Maryland House of Delegates relative to a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, requiring all senators and representatives to be natural born citizens, and that none but a natural born citizen shall become Vice-President of the United States.
Printed in script on the first page of a four-page folder.”
Illustrated catalogue of acts and laws of the colony and state of New York and of the other original colonies and states constituting the collection made by Hon. Russell Benedict, justice of the Supreme court of New York
Authors: Russell Benedict, American Art Association 1922 (??)
If you have a FOREIGN father, and you were born with FOREIGN citizenship, wouldn’t that constitute “foreign influence?” Of course.
The Politics of Aristotle
“a citizen is defined to be one born of citizen parents”
Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847)
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.
The mother took the case before the Supreme Court and they dismissed her request as they did not have jusrisdiction to hear the case & thus the lower court ruling was upheld. The child at birth was NOT a US citizen just because it was born on US soil to a mother who was an American prior to her marriage to the British subject.
on Vattel’s common law
From the Pennsylvania Gazette, March 6 1776.
Messieurs HALL and SELLERS
“All Europe must allow, that while America was in the greatest good humour with her old mother, a scheme was laid to keep up a large standing army in her capital towns, and to tax her at pleasure for the support of it. They see that, from time to time, the most fraudulent and violent measures have been taken to support their entirely unprecedented claim, till at last, drained of their national troops, they have applied for assistance to other nations. By the law of nations , we were discharged from our allegiance the moment the army was posted among us without our consent, or a single farthing taken from us in like manner; either of these being fundamental subversions of the constitutions. It remains entirely with ourselves to have ample justice done to us. We have nothing to do but declare off, and appeal to the droit des gens.”
President U. S. Grant – Municipal laws are declarations of the law of nations:
July 14, 1870
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 7th instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents.
U. S. GRANT.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 14, 1870.
The public measures designed to maintain unimpaired the domestic sovereignty and the international neutrality of the United States were independent of this policy, though apparently incidental to it. The municipal laws enacted by Congress then and since have been but declarations of the law of nations. They are essential to the preservation of our national dignity and honor; they have for their object to repress and punish all enterprises of private war, one of the last relics of mediaeval barbarism; and they have descended to us from the fathers of the Republic, supported and enforced by every succeeding President of the United States. ”
famous, quote by Bingham:
“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.”
(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).
We see that Bingham had reiterated Vattel’s definition 4 years earlier!
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, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens . Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.
(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
There should be zero question, that the “father” of the 14th Amendment (which concerns citizenship among other things) knew that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition for who is a “Natural Born Citizen” and reiterated it multiple times during discussions of citizenship and the 14th Amendment.
SUMMATION AND QUESTIONS
Your argument was destroyed using English common law itself. I then provide to you the homework that you’ve said you’ve NEVER SEEN before, which to me sounds like a lie. I then provide to you, some of the founders words which confirm that YES, they do want to avoid having a foreigner slip into office, that IS IN FACT their express intent. I then give you several court cases that reference Vattel. Did I say English Common Law? Nope. I said Vattel. So judges ARE USING VATTEL in deciding their cases on citizenship.
Here’s what I want from you…
I want you to send me letters from Vattel saying that later editions of his manuscript in regard to “natural born citizens” were mistranslated and in error and should be corrected. Simple task right, especially since you state that they’re mistranslated. Surely Vattel himself would protest right? Surely he would DEMAND that they be burned and reprinted or something of that nature in regards to “natural born citizen” being in the later editions? Having trouble finding that? I’m sure you are because Vattel did NOT protest any such thing.
Then I want you to send me letters, speeches, etc. from other Founding Fathers saying that “natural born citizen” as defined by Washington, Jays, and Hamilton was WRONG and that the Constitution was in error. Simple task if your argument is true and has merit.
Otherwise YOU’RE the one whose argument is based on your delusional attachment to Obama a child of a BRITISH CITIZEN. Are you an American? Perhaps you’re a British citizen? I find it strange that IF you are American, you would allow a person with dual allegience govern you so willingly.
I’ll be waiting for what I asked for. My guess… I’ll be waiting for a looooooooong time.