U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Fox News: Senator Ted Cruz Declares Himself A "Natural Born Citizen" And Eligible To Be President
Source:
Birther Report
URL Source: http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/0 ... senator-ted-cruz-declares.html
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Article II News
Post Date: 2015-06-18 10:49:44 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 13859
Comments: 34
Canadian-Born Senator Ted Cruz Declares Himself Poster Comment: Natural Born Canadian. 
Senator Ted Cruz just told Fox News' Sean Hannity that he's a "natural born Citizen" and is eligible...
See section 212 of this legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law which was written in 1758 Vattel, the 1775 edition which was edited and published by Dumas and was much used by the founders and framers: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
Read: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
and http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html
and http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
That Birth Certificate is fake. It's a layered .pdf file that has been modified. The "d" at the top doesn't match the "d" at the bottom. The signature is obviously phony.
The only "D" that matters in situations such as this is the D in democrat. Anyone who checks the D box will get a pass.
your quoting a text from 1775 ? How about the US code ? Title 8 of the U.S. code, section 1401 (section g ) says he is natural born. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
ping Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Good find. I'd like to see something on Cruz like this though. Obama - 1991. Self declarations are wonderful. Using them you can be anything you want. Even Hillary, who has done nothing in her life but be a defiant chronic incompetent screw-off can declare herself to be qualified to be president and a champion of the people.
Obama was never constitutionally qualified to be a citizen or anything else. Unfortunately, a coalition of minorities and mental defectives was influential and powerful enough to overlook it and elect him as president.
Title 8 of the U.S. code, section 1401 (section g ) .... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 Vattel's in the US Constitution (Article. I. Section. 8., clause 10: "Law of Nations"), which supersedes legislation. Your link covers US citizenship, not "Natural Born US Citizen". What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth. The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “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.” Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19, § 212. Of the citizens and natives. “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” "Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.". If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention. As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President. But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone’s definition of a natural-born subject. John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well. What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent. To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today. If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not. The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land. For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.” Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution” Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.) In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution. In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Genêt to honor their treaty and support France’s wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel’s Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Genêt wrote to Washington, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.” At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington. Ronald Reagan vs Obama/Cruz. In 2008 did you post the birther info on Obolo? If so let's compare the data. Please link me to your posts on Obolo's birther threads.
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Thanks. Good reference. Here it is: 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b)a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; (c)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; (d)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (e)a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; (f)a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; (g)a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h)a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Good post. I don't know why some folks find it so hard to understand or continue to waste time trying to read something different into it.
Yes on Obama, McCain, Bill Richardson, and Romney. Search, find, and post whatever you wish. Posting dirt on Obama, Richardson, etc, will not make Rafael Cruz, McCain, or Romney eligible to be president, no matter how much you find. Finding dirt on rotten dems, doesn't make the rotten pubbies any better. Go figure. In 2008 did you post the birther info on Obolo? If so let's compare the data. Please link me to your posts on Obolo's birther threads. Yes on Obama, McCain, Bill Richardson, and Romney. Search, find, and post whatever you wish. You were asked by redleghunter if you did something….and if you did, then prove you did. You say only that you did, and then you tell redleghunter to prove you did. Interesting rebuttal...
Go ahead and to do RLH's homework if you wish. I don't work for you progressives. If you want info, go find it yourself! Or hire a Canadian, Panamanian, Mexican, Kenyan, or whatever. Why would I want to? It was you, who made a claim that you can't back up….not I. Since you can't back up your claim....your deviance will simply pass as just more of your bloviating.
I made no claim, liar. Rafael E. Cruz claims to be an American, but he's admits that he's a Canadian. Nice try at diverting attention from the Canuck. Ahem... Hey, hondo....THAT is a CLAIM!
link me to your posts on Obolo's birther threads That's answers to two questions, Tater Tot. 1)Yes, I posted about Obongo's ineligibility. 2)No, find them yourself, or do without. PS: Teddy is still a Natural Born Canadian. Vattel is not in the Constitution. Vattel wrote a book called Le Droit des Gens. ou Principés de la Loi Naturelle, Appliqués à la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains or translated into English, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. Vattel's book does not contain the unwritten Law of Nations, but is one man's opinion in a book, written in French, about the Law of Nations. The Constitution cites international law in reference to international affairs, and refers to the actual international law, not Vattel's book about it. The Law of Nations is the archaic term for International Law. It has nothing to do with domestic affairs anywhere. A sovereign's determination of who is, and who is not, a citizen, is a purely domestic function. Citizenship at birth outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States is determined by United States Federal law in effect at the time of birth.
Care must be taken to ensure the law cited was applicable at the date of birth. In 1970 the provision underlined cited "ten years, at least five" and was amended in 1986 to "five years, at least two." In the case of Ted Cruz, this imprecision makes no difference as he still met the 1970 requirement and qualifies as a natural born citizen. The birth citizenship of John McCain is a fascinating conundrum. Ted Cruz = = = = = http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-iii/part-i/section-1401/ [excerpt] Amendments 1994—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103–416 added subsec. (h). 1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.
The US Navy posted his father in the Panama Canal Zone;a sovereign U.S. territory at the time of McCain's birth. If John McCain was disqualified on a technicality like that .... Now if we want to use original intent arguments then the 1st Congress made it clear . The 'Naturalization Act of 1790' (Sec3) states that if both parents are American ,anyone "born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html I dislike this whole birther issue . I did not like it when the attacks were on the emperor and I certainly don't like them being used as cheap shots at Cruz ;and an American hero like John McCain (I don't care what people think about his politics ...he's earned the title 'American hero'. )Are we going to do the same Kabuki dance for Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal ? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well stated.
Chan our "sleuther" in chief:) Good job pouring cold water on these issues. Have you heard any updates on the Bergdahl Art 32? Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
No, it was indisputedly a sovereign territory of Panama. Being born on a U.S. Base overseas is irrelevant to the U.S. law on citizenship, then or now. The problem was that the effective law at the time granted citizenship of a U.S. citizen parent (McCain had two) when the child was born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the U.S., with Congress screwing up how to extend the coverage to everyone not covered by the 14th Amdt, i.e., within the territory and jurisdiction. In the CZ, by treaty, the U.S. excercised jurisdiction as if it were the sovereign. Panama was the sovereign. The U.S. excersized jurisdiction. That left children born in the CZ in no man's land for a few years until the snafu was caught and corrected. If born in the CZ, McCain was born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and outside the territory, falling under neither the 14th Amdt nor the statute. His autobiograhy asserted birth in the hospital on the Naval Air Station. That hospital did not exist when McCain was born. If he was born in the hospital less than 100 yards outside the base, then he would have fallen under the statute. McCain never publicly produced any birth certificate. The correcting law was made retroactive. There is no doubt about McCain's citizenship but can a law retroactively make one natural born at the time of birth? Had he been disqualified on a technicality like a congressional screwup, that would be unjust.
Nothing.
It's brain dead nonsense, but it helped get Obama elected - twice. I thought it was going to die after the first inauguration.
Bergdahl Seeks DQ of General in Court-Martial By ERIK DE LA GARZA SAN ANTONIO (CN) - Attorneys for Sgt. Bowe R. Bergdahl, the Army soldier facing life in a military prison for deserting his post shortly before falling into Taliban hands in 2009, filed an appeal Friday seeking to disqualify the convening authority presiding over his Article 32 hearing. Eugene R. Fidell, Bergdahl's lawyer, argued in a petition filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that Gen. Mark A. Milley "is statutorily disqualified" as convening authority because he "has an interest other than official" given his pending nomination to become the Army's next chief of staff. Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter announced May 13 that President Barack Obama selected Milley as his pick for the position. No date has been set for the required confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee or a floor vote by the full Senate. Fidell argued in Friday's petition that "the extraordinary interest" the Senate has expressed in the Bergdahl matter "deprives him of the right to discretionary general court-martial convening authority decision-making that is (and appears to be) based solely on the facts and circumstances of the case, without regard to the personal interest of that official in being confirmed for higher office." As general court-martial convening authority, Milley has the authority to dispose of the charges or enter into a pretrial agreement. Earlier last month, Milley denied a defense request to recuse himself as convening authority without explanation, according to the 15-page petition. "There are no other non-judicial remedies to exhaust," the petition says. The appeal was filed a day after Army officials announced Bergdahl's Article 32 hearing had been rescheduled, at the request of the defense, to Sept. 17. The hearing, similar to a grand-jury proceeding in civilian court that is open to the public, was originally scheduled for July 8. It will still be held at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas, where Bergdahl is stationed as an active-duty sergeant. Bergdahl, 29, fell into Taliban hands in Afghanistan shortly after leaving his combat post in the Paktika province on June 30, 2009. He was held captive from June 2009 to May 2014, when he was freed in a prisoner exchange. On March 25, the U.S. Army charged Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy "by endangering the safety of a command, unit or place." The charges carry the possibility of a maximum of five years and life in a military prison. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/06/08/bergdahl-seeks-dq-of-general-in-court-martial.htm This is the last thing I've seen on him. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
That is true, but does not change what a natural born US citizen is. There is a difference between citizen at birth, and natural born citizen. You've proven that Rafael E. Cruz is an anchor baby (US citizen at birth), but sidestepped the presidential eligibility question, and natural born. http://www.theobamafile.com/obamanaturalborn.htm See the hand-written letter: http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/jay-letter.jpg The John Jay quote is deceptively imprecise. While Jay did use the phrase natural born citizen it was written with specific emphasis on the word born. John Jay explicitly wrote natural born Citizen Put the proper strong emphasis on "natural born Citizen" and the fantastic interpretations do not emerge. Moreover, before John Jay wrote about the qualifications of the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, not then determined to be the President, Alexander Hamilton wrote relevantly about eligibility to be President.
All nouns are capitalized in the Constitution. LAW OF NATIONS, in caps or not, is not the title of Vattel's book. If it were a reference to Vattel's book, one would expect the correct title. The Law of Nations is not an obscure idea. It is an archaic term. See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition: International law is the modern term for Law of Nations. Most people have heard of international law and do not consider it a vague idea. It has no application whatever to the purely domestic affairs of any nation. The Law of Nations has come about through centuries of custom and usage. Vattel died in 1767. That predates the Declaration of Independence. Vattel issued no revisions from the great beyond. There were no American citizens, natural born or otherwise, in 1767. An English translation of Vattel used the term natural born citizen for the first time in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution was proposed and 30 years after Vattel was dead. The term natural born citizen was lifted from the Constitution and imported into Vattel via translation. John Jay actually wrote "natural born Citizen" with emphasis about the office of the Commander in Chief of the Army which had not then merged with the office of the President. Hamilton offered his idea on the qualifications for the office of the President. Hamilton, Jefferson, Rawle and Natural Born Citizen Natural, defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. Also from Black's, In English law, that kind of allegiance which is due from all men born within the king's dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and cannot be divested by any act of their own. In American law, the allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which cannot be renounced without the permission of goverment, to be declared by law. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 667-68 (1898) Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed, at various times, enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects, or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport; and they have never been considered, in either country, as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.
I never got into quoting Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law — not when I can cite and quote the adoption of English Common Law by all thirteen original states in their original constitutions or by statute law, and Supreme Court opinions about the Federal Constitution. I documented this in 2012. Cited authorities are wrapped into the PDF and made instantly accessible by hyperlinks that never become bad links. Every original state and the Federal district explicitly adopted the common law of England, excluding those parts that conflicted with the Constitution. The claim that the Founding and Framing generation did not adopt the common law is documented as meritless. Common Law and English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era
The case is from 1784. The first thing to take note of is that there were no Federal courts in 1784. Neither was this a State court. This case occurred in New York City Mayor's Court, Mayor James Duane presiding. The opinion of the Mayor's Court was published as "Arguments and Judgment of The Mayor's Court of The City of New-York, In a Cause Between Elizabeth Rutgers And Joshua Waddington." The original uses olde English characters. I have transliterated to modern English characters. All italics as in original. Rutgers was the owner several brew-houses and malt-houses in NYC when the British conquered and occupied the city during the Revolutionary War. Rutgers fled the city. The British commander occupying the city licensed British citizen Waddington to operate several brew-houses and malt-houses, the property of Rutgers. Rutgers sued Waddington for damages citing a NY state law, "an act for granting a more effectual relief in cases of certain trespasses." The issue was raised "[w]hether the laws of nations give the captors, and Defendant under them, rights which controul the operation of the statute and bar the present suit." Also raised was [w]hether there is such an amnesty included or implied in the definitive treaty of peace, as virtually or effectually relinquishes or releases the Plaintiff's demand under said statute." During the time when NYC was occupied by the British, international law is applicable. International law does not apply to purely domestic affairs, such as citizenship determination. A manuscript of one of Hamilton's briefs indicates "That the law of nations could apply in litigation in a New York State court: a) Why it could apply (part of common law: reception)." [boldface added] The Court found at 45-46: Again it is asked, whether vessels condemned here in the Courts of Admiralty, can be recovered under this statute. Whether the British Generals, Howe and Clinton can be prosecuted under it for damages which they have committed on the property of the exiles, in relation to the war? The principles, which we have lain down, clearly shew that such vessels cannot be recovered: That those Generals cannot be sued because these are all acts done in relation to the war, which according to the law of nations, are virtually and effectual buried in oblivion by the definitive treaty: every such treaty in its very nature implying a general amnesty. COURT OPINION EXCERPTS NEW-YORK: [1] - - - - - ADVERTISEMENT The fuit between Elizabeth Rutgers and Joshua Waddington, having from its peculiar circumftances been a fubject of much public expectation, it has been judged, that a publication of the principles on which the late determination in the Mayor's Court was founded, might anfwer fome beneficial purpofes ; and would at leaft ferve to prevent mifapprehenfion. In compliance with the wifhes and requeft of feveral citizens, the arguments and judgment of the Court are now given to the public. [2] - - - - - ELIZABETH RUTGERS AGAINST JOSHUA WADINGTON. This was an acion of trespass brought against the Defendant, upon an act of the Legislature of this state, passed the seventeenth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, for the occupation of a brew-house and malt-house of the Plaintiff, from the thirteenth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, until the time of passing the act above mentioned. The cause came on to be argued upon demurrer, before the Honorable James Duane, Esq. Mayor, Richard Varrick, Esq. Recorder, Benjamin Blagge, William W. Gilbert, William Neilson, Thomas Randal, and Thomas Ivers, Esquires, Aldermen, on Tuesday the twenty-ninth day of June past. The Counsel for the Plaintiff, were Mr. Lawrence, assisted by the Attorney-General, Mr. Wilcox, and Mr. Troupe. Those for the Defendant [3] - - - - - were Mr. Hamilton, assisted by Mr. B. Livingston, and Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lawrence opened the pleadings and arguments on the part of the Plaintiff, and was followed by Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Livingston, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Hamilton, were next successively heard, in behalf of the Defendant; and were replied to by Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Troupe, and the Attorney-General. The arguments on both fides were elaborate, and the authorities numerous. The Court took time to advise, until Tuesday the twenty-seventh day of August, and then the Honorable the Mayor proceeded to deliver the judgment of the Court, as follows : "In the cafe of Elizabeth Rutgers, versus Joshua Waddington, which we gave notice mould be determined this day, the Court now proceed to judgment. It is represented to be a controversy of high importance; from the value of the property, which in this and other actions depends on the same principles; from involving in it questions, which must affect the national character:---Questions whose decision will record the spirit of our Courts to prosperity! Questions which embrace the whole law of nations! It were to be wished, that a cause of this magnitude was not to receive its first impression from a Court of such a limited jurisdiction, as that in which we preside;---from Magistrates actively engaged in establishing the police of a disordered city, and in other duties, which cut them off from those studious researches, which great and intricate questions require. If we err in our opinion, it will be a a consolation, that it has been intimated, "to be [4] - - - - - probable, whatever may be the determination that it will not end here." The Counsel on both sides, who have managed this cause, and by whose diligence and abilities, so much learning, on an uncommon subject, hath been drawn into view, have spared us much labour. We cannot but express the pleasure which we have received, in seeing young gentlemen, just called to the bar, from the active and honorable scenes of a military life, already so distinguished as public speakers, so much improved in an arduous science.* That in a contest, (which we are told) is not considered without temporary prepossession, we may express our sentiments with more deliberation and correctness; and that nothing to be offered by us, may be misunderftood or misapplied, we have taken the trouble to preserve our remarks by committing them to paper.‡ The action is grounded on a statute of this state, entitled, "an act for granting a more effectual relief in cases of certain trespasses," passed the seventeenth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three; and the declaration charges, 1st. The substance of the act, viz. "That it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons, who are, or were inhabitants of this state, and who, by reason of the invasion of the enemy, left his, her, or their place or places of abode, who have not voluntarily put themselves respectively into the power of the * Omnes not possunt, ne multi quidem, aut jurisperiti esse, aut diferti, says Cicero, speaking of the science of the law in his day. The difficulty is since much enhanced by the progress of commerce, and the change of manners in different ages. † Omnis absit in judicando precisitantiat adcoque extemporancae sententieae temeritas cane pejus et angue fugiatur. Barbeyrac [5] - - - - - the enemy, since they respectively left their places of abode, his, her, or their heirs, executors, or administrators, to bring an action of trespasses against any person or persons, who may have occupied, injured, or destroyed his, her, or their estate, either real or personal, within the power of the enemy." 2. Complains that the Defendant, on the thirtieth day of August, 1778, with force and arms, &c. occupied one brew-house, and one malt-house of the Plaintiff, situate in the east ward of the city of New-York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, and his occupation thereof so continued, from the said 13th day of August, in the year 1778, until the 17th day of March, in the year 1783. 3. And also, that he the said Joshua, with force and arms, &c. afterwards, to wit, the same 13th day of August, 1778, and at divers days and times, between the said 13th day of August, 1778, and the 17th day of March, 1783, occupied one other brew-house, and one other malt-house, of her the said Elizabeth, within the city and ward, and within the jurifdiction, &c. et alia enormia, to the great damage, &c. against the peace, &c. And the said Elizabeth avers, 1st. That there was open war between the king of Great-Britain, his vassals, &c. and the people of the state of New-York aforesaid, on the 10th day of September, 1776, to wit, at the east ward, &c. and within, &c. and that the said open war continued from the said day, until the time of passing the act aforefaid. 2d. That the King of Great-Britain, his vassals, &c. and the enemy mentioned and intended in the said act are one and the same and not different. [6] - - - - - 3d. That she was an inhabitant of the state of New-York, and that the place of her abode was the city of New-York, in the state of New-York, on the tenth day of September, in the year last aforesaid, to wit, in the east ward, &c. and within the jurisdiction, &c. 4th. That by reason of the invasion of the enemy, she the said Elizabeth afterwards, to wit, the said tenth day of September, in the year aforesaid, left her said place of abode, to wit, in the ward aforesaid and within &c. 5th. That she did not, at any time after she left her said place of abode, as aforesaid, voluntarily put herself within the power of the enemy aforefaid. 6th. That the brew-house and malt-house aforefaid, were parcel of the real estate of the said Elizabeth, and at the days and times they were occupied by the said Joshua were in the power of the enemy, to wit, at the east ward, &c, and within &c. Wherefore the said Elizabeth saith she is made worse, and hath sustained damage to eight thousand Pounds et inde, &c. The Defendant to this charge, as to the force and arms and whatsoever is against the peace, and as to the whole of the trespass aforefaid, except as to the occupying the said brew-houfe and malthouse of the said Elizabeth, on the twenty-eighth day of September 1778, and continuing the occupation thereof until the seventeenth day of March 1783, he pleads not guilty and takes issue. And as to the occupying the brew-house and malt-house, on the aforesaid twenty-eighth day of September, 1778, and continuing the occupation thereof until the last day of April 1780 inclusively, the said Defendant saith, that the said Elizabeth actionem [7] - - - - - non, quia dicet, that long before the said twenty-seventh day of September 1778, to wit, on the fourth day of July 1776, in (substance) the declaration of independence by Congress, who did then and there declare, that the United Colonies were, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they were absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them an the state of Great-Britain was, and ought to be totally dissolved, &c. That the said declaration was on the ninth of July, in the year aforesaid, approved of by the Convention of the state of New-York: And afterwards, on the 8th day of May 1777, the same was recognized and confirmed by the Legislature of this state. That upon the 10th day of September 1776, and from that time until after the last day of April 1783, there being open war between &c. the army of the said king, on the 10th day of September, 1776, conquered the city of New-York, and continued in uninterrupted possession thereof, from that time until and after the last day of April 1778; and the said army so being in possession, the said brew-house and malt-house, by virtue of authority from the Commander in Chief of the said army, on the 10th day of June 1778, was taken possession of by the Commissary-General of the said army, for the use of the said army---as by the laws, &c. of nations in time of war he lawfully might do---and that the said Commissary on &c. at &c. gave his licence and permission to Benjamin Waddington and Evelyn Pierrepont, residing in the said city as British merchants, under the protection of the said British army, and having been from their birth and still being subjects of the King of Great-Britain, to enter into, [8] - - - - - ufe and occupy the said malt-house and brew-house, from the said 28th day of September 1778 inclusively, to the last day of April 1780 inclusively: By virtue whereof they entered and occupied the premises, from the first of the two last mentioned days to the last inclusively; and the Defendant as their servant and at their command, from time to time, and at divers times from the first to the last of those days, entered into and occupied the said brew-house and malt-house, for the benefit of the said Benjamin and Evelyn: Quae eft eadem &c. whereof the Plaintiff complains, in the first count of her declaration. And as to the occupying the said brew-house and malt-house, from the last day of April, 1780, to the 17th of March, 1783, he pleads over again the declaration of independence of these states; the approbation thereof by the Convention of the state; and the recognition and confirmation thereof by the Convention; the conquest of the city of New-York by the British: And that the brew-house and malt-house, being out of the possession of the Plaintiff, the Commander in Chief of the said army, on the last day of April, 1780, gave his license and permission (as by the laws of nations he might lawfully do) to the said Benjamin and Evelyn (describing them as in the other plea) to enter into and occupy the said brew-house and malt-house, from the last day of April, 1780, until the said license and permission should be revoked; paying therefore to such person as the Commander in Chief should authorize to receive the same, at the rate of one hundred and fifty pounds for each year, in quarterly payments, &c. He then avers that they accordingly entered and occupied the said brew-house and malt-house, on the [9] - - - - - 1st day of May, 1780, and continued the occupation thereof until the 17th day of March, 1783, till when the said license remained in force; and then avers as before, that he as their servant, and at their command, from time to time and at divers times, between the two last mentioned days, did enter and occupy the said brew-house and malt-house, &c. quae eft eadem &c. concluding with an averment, that the said Benjamin and Evelyn did pay the said one hundred and fifty pounds a year to John Smith, appointed by the said Commander in Chief to receive the same. For further plea to the whole of the tresprass, according to the form of the statute, the Defendant saith, that the Plaintiff actionem non &c. Because he saith, that after the passing the act of the Legislature of this state, in the declaration mentioned, to wit, on the 3d day of September, 1783, at &c. a certain definitive treaty of peace, between the king of Great-Britain and his subjects, and the United States and the subjects and citizens thereof and of each of them, was entered into, made and concluded by plenipotentiaries on the part of the said king and states respectively (naming them) in virtue of full powers &c. which definitive treaty, on the 14th day of January, 1784, at Annapolis, &c. by the United States of America in Congress, then and there assembled in due form, was ratified and confirmed; and afterwards on the same day, announced and published by proclamation under the seal of the United States, to all the good citizens of the said United States; enjoining all magistracies, legislatures, &c. to carry into effect the said definitive treaty &c. prout &c. In virtue of which said definitive treaty, [10] - - - - - all right, claim, &c. which either of the said contracting parties, and the subjects and citizens of either of them might otherwise have had to any compensation, recompence, retribution, or indemnity whatsoever, for or by reason of any injury, or damage, whether to the public or individuals, which either of the said contracting parties, and the subjects and citizens of either might have done or caused to be done to the other, in consequence of, or in any wise relating to the war between them, from the time of the commencement to the determination thereof, were mutually and reciprocally, virtually and effectually, relinquished, renounced and released to each other &c.---And he avers, as in his other plea, that from the time of his birth, and at all times since, he hath been and still is a subject of the king of Great-Britain: And between the times in his plea mentioned, as a subject: of the said king, resided in the city of New-York, using the art, trade, &c. of a merchant, under the protection of the army of the said king, then waging war against the said state; et hoc paratus eft verificari: Wherefore he prays judgment whether the said Plaintiff, her action against him ought to have or maintain; with this, that the said Joshua will verify that the whole of the trespass by him supposed to be committed, is for certain acts &c. by him supposed to have been done while he was residing as a subject of the said king, and under the protection of the army of the said king, and in relation to the war aforesaid. The Plaintiff replies as to the plea of the Defendant, as to the residue of the trefpass, by him done as aforesaid, by him above pleaded in bar, that she by reason thereof ought not to be barred [11] - - - - - from her said action; because she says, that by the act &c. for granting a more effectual relief in cases of certain trespasses, in her declaration in part recited, it is also among other things enacted, that no Defendant or Defendants, shall be admitted to plead in justification any military order, or command whatsoever of the enemy, for such occupancy: And avers, that the said Commissary-General and Commander in Chief were, at the time of giving the permission or license, subjects to the said king of Great-Britain, the enemy mentioned and intended by the act aforesaid, and in the military service of the said king: Wherefore seeing that the said Joshua hath acknowledged the trespass by him done as aforesaid, the said Elizabeth prays judgment and her damages, &c. And as to the further plea of the said Joshua, to the whole of the trespass aforesaid by him pleaded in bar, the Plaintiff demurs. And the Defendant on his part demurs to the plea of the Plaintiff last above pleaded. The pleadings close with joinders in demurrer, in the usual forms. From these pleadings, and the arguments which they have produced, three questions are presented for our consideration. Ist. Whether the Plaintiffs case is within the letter and intent of the statute on which this action is grounded? IIdly. Whether the laws of nations give the captors, and Defendant under them, rights which controul the operation of the statute and bar the present suit? IIIdly. Whether there is such an amnesty included or implied in the definitive treaty of peace, as virtually or effectually relinquishes or releases the Plaintiff's demand under the said statute ? [12] [...] Hence it can be no more an objection or reproach to the law of nations, than it is to any other science (for all partake of imperfection)---that a difference of sentiments and opinions should be discovered among different authors !---A further use intended by these observations, is to justify the preference, which we shall give to Mr. Vattel, in points where we shall find him at variance with other writers. But to return from this digression, to the arguments before us: It has been objected by one of the Plaintiff's counsel, that these states are not bound by the customary and voluntary law of nations, any further than as either of them, has adopted or engrafted them. But the objection has been fully answered: By our excellent constitution, the common law is declared to be part of the law of the land; and the jus gentium is a branch of the common law. In republica maxime conservandi jut jura belli, is an ancient adage. The authorities cited on this point for the Defendant are full and conclusive. Indeed if we should not recognise the law of na- [23] - - - - - tions, neither ought the benefit of that law to be extended to us: and it would follow that our commerce, and our persons, in foreign parts, would be unprotected by the great sanctions, which it has enjoined.--- After being thus explicit, it is almost unnecessary to touch a more limited question, of the fame nature, which has been debated in the course of the arguments, viz. Whether the common laws of war which apply to two great nations, apply to two great parts of the same nation? The manner in which Mr. Vattel treats this question, is highly satisfactory; and humanity forbids, that his principles should be ever called in question! When a nation becomes divided into two parties absolutely independent, and no longer acknowledging a common superior, the state is dissolved; and the war betwixt the two parties, in every respect, is the same with that of a public war, between two different nations. Independent of each other, they can have no judge; like two different nations, they appeal to the ultima ratio regum---they decide the quarrel by arms---were it not for the restraints imposed by the law of nations, such a civil war would be beyond expression cruel and destructive. Hasty punishments, in the moment of rage and animosity, would mark its progress with injustice, laughter and desolation. But alas! have the restraints of that benevolent law protected our country in the late war, from the miseries we have described? They have not!---Vengeance unrestrained, and undistinguished, hath been let loose upon us in all her horrors! [24] - - - - - But it is peace!---Let our injuries and our resentments be buried forever in the definitive treaty!--- What we have suffered cannot alter the common laws of war: they are founded upon reason and humanity, and will prevail as long as reason and humanity are cultivated. As philosophy and the love of mankind extend themselves, these beneficial institutions will, we trust, be still further improved, to controul the human passions, and mitigate the asperities of war; till in the end hostilities shall be banished from the world, as disgraceful to our nature.* But to return to the point. The words which follow, are the decision of Vattel, speaking of the case before us---"The obligation" says he, "of observing the common laws of war, is therefore absolute indispensible to both parties; and the same which the law of nature obliges all nations to observe between state and state." And here it is questioned, whether since the law of nations is obligatory, it may in any part be altered by a particular society, so as to deprive a foreigner, when residing in that country, of his appeal to them? The Defendant's counsel deny, that in theory, a particular state hath such a right. They raise this distinction, that where there is merely an infringement of the local law, foreigners like all others, must * The ancients it is remarked, were impressed with but a very faint idea of the law of nations. Some are of opinion, that it had its origin in the reign of Charlemagne, about the middle of the eighth century, before which time the nations of Europe, but little civilized, observed few treaties: Others fix it at a much later period, affirming that all knowledge of the science before the reign of Maximilian 1st. (about the beginning of the fifteenth century) is rather matter of curiosity than instruction. However since this last period, its progress hath been gradual, and its influence more and more extensive. [25] - - - - - be judged by that law: But where the transaction originally affects a man's conduct, as a member of a foreign nation, he may appeal to the law of nations, and by that law, which is part of the law of the land, the thing must be decided. [...] [26] [...] We fhall deduce only one inference from what [28] - - - - - hath been here obferved—that to abrogate or alter any one of the known laws or ufages of nations, by the authority of a fingle ftate, muft be contrary to the very nature of the confederacy, and the evident intention of the articles, by which it is eftablifhed, as well as dangerous to the union itfelf. We are next led by the arguments which have been offered, to examine—whether the war was of fuch a nature ; and the capture fuch a conqueft as abfolutely to transfer, under the idea of an ufufrucl, the rents and ifTues of houfes and lands to the Britifh Commander, during his occupancy of the city ? [...] [29] [...] [35] [...] But when a law is expressed in general words, and some collateral matter, which happens to arise from those general words is unreasonable, there the Judges are in decency to conclude, that the consequences were not foreseen by the Legislature ; and therefore they are at liberty to expound the statute by equity, and only quoad hoc to difregard it. When the judicial make these distinctions, they do not controul the Legislature; they endeavour to give their intention it's proper effect. This is the substance of the authorities, on a comprehensive view of the subject; this is the language of Blackstone in his celebrated commentaries, and this is the practice of the courts of justice, from which we have copied our jurisprudence, as well as the models of our own internal judicatories. To apply these general remarks to the particular case under our confideration---The American prisoners of war, in the power of the enemy, were quartered in the houses of the exiles: they in fact occupied those houses by a military order or command, and are included within the general description of the statute, [41] - - - - - which according to the letter, extends to all persons without any exception, who have so occupied or injured such houses. But can we force ourselves to believe, that the Legislature could have been so unjust and oppressive, as to add to the sufferings of the patriot soldier, consigned after fighting the battles of his country, to a long captivity by making him pay for the fetters, which he had worn in the service of his country, or for want of means, to undergo a second loss of liberty? [42] [...] Again it is asked, whether vessels condemned here in the Courts of Admiralty, can be recovered under this [45] - - - - - statute. Whether the British Generals, Howe and Clinton can be prosecuted under it for damages which they have committed on the property of the exiles, in relation to the war? The principles, which we have lain down, clearly shew that such vessels cannot be recovered: That those Generals cannot be sued because these are all acts done in relation to the war, which according to the law of nations, are virtually and effectual buried in oblivion by the definitive treaty: every such treaty in its very nature implying a general amnesty. We have gone further perhaps into many important subjects, which have been brought into view by this controversy, than was strictly necessary; but it is time that the law of nations and the nature and effects of treaties should be understood: And in the infancy of our republic, every proper opportunity should be embraced to inculcate a sense of national obligation, and a reverence for institutions, on which the tranquility of mankind, confidered as members of different states and communities so essentially depends. Befides the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, never applied more forcibly, than it now doth to us in our present circumstances; and it is hoped by being thus explicit, we may ease the minds of a multitude of suitors, whose causes are depending here under this statute---at all events we shall relieve this Court from an unusual weight of judicial examination, which a want of time renders incompatible with our other public and indispensable duties. Upon the whole, it is the opinion of this Court, that the plea of the Defendant as to the occupancy of the Plaintiff's brew-house and malt-house, be- [46] tween the 28th day of September, 1778, and the last day of April, 1780; and the last plea of the Defendant as to the whole of the trespass, charged in the Plaintiff's declaration are insufficient in the law; and that only the plea of the Defendant in justification of the occupancy between the last day of April 1780, and the 17th day of March 1783, is good and sufficient in the law.--- Let Judgment be entered accordingly. [47]
True dat. A natural born citizen is, and always has been, one who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. A child born in the USA to two illegal aliens, both parents in detention awaiting deportion, is a natural born citizen. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
Yeah Gen Milley is a by the book type. So can see why the defense wants to can him..
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
The "d" at the top doesn't match the "d" at the bottom.
#3. To: hondo68 (#0)
See section 212 of this legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law which was written in 1758 Vattel, the 1775 edition
#4. To: All, Redleghunter (#3)
(Edited)
Title 8 of the U.S. code, section 1401 (section g ) says he is natural born. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
#5. To: hondo68 (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
Senator Ted Cruz Declares Himself A "Natural Born Citizen" And Eligible To Be President
#7. To: Deckard (#5)
#8. To: tomder55 (#3)
your quoting a text from 1775 ? How about the US code ?
Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen
http://www.theobamafile.com/obamanaturalborn.htm 
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#9. To: hondo68, liberator, tomder55 (#0)
#10. To: tomder55 (#4)
#11. To: redleghunter (#10)
#12. To: redleghunter, D 'n R Crime Syndicate, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#9)
In 2008 did you post the birther info on Obolo?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#13. To: hondo68, redleghunter (#12)
(Edited)
#14. To: Gatlin, redleghunter, presidential candidate, a job that Americans wont do? (#13)
(Edited)
lie blah, blah lie, lie blah blah...
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#15. To: hondo68, redleghunter (#14)
Go ahead and to do RLH's homework if you wish.
#16. To: Gatlin (#15)
(Edited)
made a claim that you can't back up
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#17. To: hondo68, redleghunter (#16)
redleghunter: In 2008 did you post the birther info on Obolo? If so let's compare the data. Please link me to your posts on Obolo's birther threads.
hondo68: Yes on Obama, McCain, Bill Richardson, and Romney. Search, find, and post whatever you wish. [Boldness Added]
#18. To: Gatlin, answers, not claims, tater tard (#17)
(Edited)
did you post the birther info on Obolo?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#19. To: hondo68, tomder55, redleghunter, Gatlin (#8)
Vattel's in the US Constitution (Article. I. Section. 8., clause 10: "Law of Nations"), which supersedes legislation.
#20. To: redleghunter, tomder55, Gatlin (#10)
(g)a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
b. December 22, 1970 (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, §12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, §101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)
#21. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Gatlin (#20)
The birth citizenship of John McCain is a fascinating conundrum
#22. To: tomder55, nolu chan, redleghunter, (#21)
I dislike this whole birther issue . I did not like it when the attacks were on the emperor and I certainly don't like them being used as cheap shots at Cruz ;and an American hero like John McCain (I don't care what people think about his politics ...he's earned the title 'American hero'. )Are we going to do the same Kabuki dance for Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal ?
#23. To: nolu chan (#20)
#24. To: tomder55, redleghunter, Gatlin (#21)
The US Navy posted his father in the Panama Canal Zone;a sovereign U.S. territory at the time of McCain's birth.
#25. To: redleghunter (#23)
Have you heard any updates on the Bergdahl Art 32?
#26. To: tomder55 (#21)
I dislike this whole birther issue.
#27. To: redleghunter, nolu chan (#23)
#28. To: nolu chan, Rafael E. Cruz anchor baby, citizen at birth, not a naural born US citizen (#19)
Citizenship at birth outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States is determined by United States Federal law in effect at the time of birth.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#29. To: hondo68 (#8)
John Jay's letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes "Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."
#30. To: hondo68 (#8)
If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized.
Law of nations. See International law.
The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal;" and then it means proceeding from or dfetermined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.
Natural allegiance.
Native. A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of is birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 446. 42 L.Ed. 890.
There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there was any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. [*668] Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.
#31. To: hondo68 (#8)
Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone's natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father's were influenced from Blackstone's Commentary.
#32. To: hondo68 (#8)
In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.
It is asked by the Defendant's counsel, whether if a person within the power of the enemy, had been ordered by them on pain of death, to injure or destroy the property of an exile, he could have been sued under this statute, for obeying such order? The answer is obvious---if he did the injury under coertion and for the preservation of his life, the duress on every principle of law and reason, ought to work out his justification;---for no one can conceive that the statute, comprehensive as it is in the provision, could have been intended to be applied to such a case of extreme and fatal necessity.
Arguments and Judgment
of the
Mayor's Court
of The City of
New-York,
In a Cause
Between
Elizabeth Rutgers
And
Joshua Waddington
Printed by SAMUEL LOUDON.
M,DCCC,LXXXIV. Thus we see, that the writers on the law of nations are distinguished philosophers, of different countries and ages; some educated in republics; some in monarchies; some at a time when prejudice, and an ignorance of the rights of mankind prevailed; and others when philosophy had refined the reason, and in some measure subdued the fiercer passions of the human mind.
We muft acknowledge there appears to us very great force in the obfervation arifing from the federal compact. By this compact thefe ftates are bound together as one great independent nation; and with refpect to their common and national affairs, exercife a joint fovereignty, whofe will can only be manifefted by the acts of their delegates in Congrefs affembled. As a nation they muft be governed by one common law of nations ; for on any other principles how can they act with regard to foreign powers ; and how fhall foreign powers act towards them ? It feems evident that abroad they can only be known in their federal capacity. What then muft be the effect ? What the confufion ? if each feparate ftate fhould arrogate to itfelf a right of changing at pleafure thofe laws, which are received as a rule of conduct, by the common confent of the greater! part of the civilized world.
We are therefore of opinion, that restitution of the fruit, or in other words, the rents and issues of houses and lands, which have been bona fide, collected by or under the authority of the British Commander, while he held possession of the city, cannot, according to the law of nations, be required.
The supremacy of the Legislature need not be called into question; if they think positively to enact a law, there is no power which can controul them. When the main object of such a law is clearly expressed, and the intention manifest, the Judges are not at liberty, altho' it appears to them to be unreasonable, to reject it: for this were to set the judicial above the legislative, which would be subversive of all government.
It is asked by the Defendant's counsel, whether if a person within the power of the enemy, had been ordered by them on pain of death, to injure or destroy the property of an exile, he could have been sued under this statute, for obeying such order? The answer is obvious---if he did the injury under coertion and for the preservation of his life, the duress on every principle of law and reason, ought to work out his justification;---for no one can conceive that the statute, comprehensive as it is in the provision, could have been intended to be applied to such a case of extreme and fatal necessity.
#33. To: hondo68 (#28)
That is true, but does not change what a natural born US citizen is.
Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.
#34. To: CZ82 (#27)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]