CITED RENOWNED SWISS AUTHOR IN LECTURES AT CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL
by John Charlton
(Oct. 28, 2009) — A lot of heated debate was stirred up on the web, when The Post & Email in 2 reports published the testimony of witnesses to the 2004 Keyes vs. Obama debate, in which Obama conceded that he was not a “natural born citizen”. Read those reports here:
Obama concedes he’s not a NBC, in Obama vs. Keyes 2004 Debate
2nd Witness to Obama admission, in Keyes vs. Obama 2004 debate
Now it has come to light that Obama is familiar with the Swiss author’s work, The Law of Nations, and that therefore knew what he was discounting in the 2004 debate.
The evidence is cited by the New York Times itself, which published a reading packet from Obama’s 1994 Seminar, “Current Issues in Racism and the Law.”
The damning evidence consists in a citation from Vattel’s work, on p. 9 of his course handout to his students in 1994. Therein it indicates that he assigned them to read an excerpt from Vattel’s work, which was contained on p. 29 of his Reading Handout anthology, under the title, “Historical Foundations.”
Considering that Indian rights would involve questions of native born citizenship and citizenship rights, it would have been arguably necessary for Obama to have considered Vattel’s doctrine on these key issues, in which texts Vattel describes at length the notion of “natural born citizen”, which includes 2 parent citizens.
Obama’s father was a British subject at birth, and therefore according to 4 Supreme Court rulings, Obama is not qualified as a “natural born citizen”, and thus cannot lawfully hold the presidency of the United States.
The discrepancies of Obama’s personal history were previously reported by The Post & Email in the article entitled:
1 Thing is certain about Obama
Interestingly enough, among the topics Obama suggested students discuss are Inter-racial Adoptions.
UK Fan,
Technically speaking, citizens derive NO rights from the constitution. The constitution is in essence a (very) limited power of attorney granting certain trust to the federal government to act on behalf of the people. Our constitutional republic is a 2 law system, citizens under the laws of nature and nature’s God (natural law) and the government under constitutional law. The usurpation of the constitution does indeed work against the 2 law system, but it is the citizen’s duty and right to defend the constitution. We The People are ultimately responsible. The only way We The People lose our rights is by abdication. Comments about the constitution being destroyed or dead are a bit premature. People are waking up and recognizing it is time to take a stand and put a stop to the usurpation. Consider this a call to all who see this that it is time to draw a line in the sand, for the constitution cannot defend itself.
Not only does Obama know he is not a Natural Born Citizen, he and his associates have been at work on amending the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen requirement:
http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/obama-covertly-working-to-amend-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement/
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
SARAH P. HERLIHY∗
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible…
Thanks John, Great write up!
ATTENTION PLEASE!
I had some exchange with Mr. Charlton. Please everybody read the result of that here (it’s in the comment under the article that has already disappeared from the first screen – because of that I’m informing about it here):
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/obamas-grasp-for-absolute-power-has-begun/#comment-1763
You’ll see the estimate by Mr. Charlton of the offered idea . In order to entirely understand that idea (extending far and away /despite media/ awareness about Obama’s Ineligibility according Constitution with the 5 min foolproof /in my view/ of that in order to begin to solve this Constitutional problem already by proper voting in 2010) I ask everybody to read all comments to that article (including of course inner links) – it’ll take just several minutes.
As you see the straightforward reading Constitution together with The Oath of Allegiance leads to the only possible inference about NBC (Natural Born Citizen) that coincides with Vattel’s definition of NBC:
NBC = born in the US to parents citizens (it means only the US jurisdiction is allowed).
I admitted that I didn’t have much a success with moving this idea on RestoreTheConstitutionalRepublic (although the tool was prepared there:
– a short flyer “To Fellow American Citizen!”
http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3189.msg16894#msg16894 ;
– a longer one
http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3189.msg15490#msg15490 ;
– the proof of Obama’s Ineligibility that is placed in the letter to Glenn Beck “Please help to uphold Constitution of the US! “:
http://www.restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=2783.msg12853#msg12853 )
I will try again. But this idea may be realized from anywhere:
“Everybody who agrees with this foolproof… proof can use it as his/her own proof. Please just use it!”
Mr. Charlton promised (thanks!) to write about a realization of that idea if there is any. CAN WE GET SOME GOOD NEWS for Post & Email IN THAT DIRECTION?!
An excellent essay by Atty Mario Apuzzo on the writings of Emmerich de Vattel and the 1758 legal treatise “The Law of Nations and Natural Law” and how that author’s writings influenced the founding of our nation and the writing of our Constitution and how the citizenship definitions, including ‘natural born citizen’ in Vattel became the U.S. common law as to citizenship for the U.S. federal government via Vattel’s words being cited in four or more U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Venus (1814) and Minor v Happersett (1874) and was reaffirmed by the facts of the case in Elg (1939) where it was confirmed that a person born in the USA to two citizens of the country is what a natural born citizen is.
‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
RJ
Obama is the puppet in front of the curtain. Like other presidents before him he is having his strings pulled by those in favor of bringing the U.S. down. We need to find out who they are and crush them.
One of the many ironies about Obuma is that his instruction on the Constitution was focused to a fanatical extent on race. It was all about how to use the Constitution to further “liberation” for African-Americans.
But Obuma is not an African-American, not in the sense in which that term was always used pre-Obuma, and he shares nothing of real African-American heritage. As with so much about our pseudo-president, the term “African-American” is a fraud when applied to him.
The Natural Born Citizen Clause is one of the best things the Founding Fathers could have done. Barry Obama has never liked the Constitution and would love to do away with it. The Constitution protects the people and is suppose to limit big government. If you take away the Constitution, you take away the peoples rights. If the people have no rights then they become slaves to whoever is in power.
And here’s the complete article from the Chicago Kent Law Review (need to amend the natural born citizen clause):–
http://usjf.net/?p=1292
Obama associates have long since written specifically on the need to amend the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause.
See, for example:–
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1131&posts=3
WoW!!! It would be hard to rebut this. You have him by the tonsils.