er_giveaway_banner.jpg (39000 bytes)

He Blinded Them with Science

THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF VATTEL’S RELEVANCE TO “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

by Jedi Pauly

Cover page of "The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel

(Nov. 26, 2010) — As many of the readers of the Post and Email News are aware, I have written and described the correct scientific theory of law that explains the true meaning in the U.S. Constitution of Article II “natural born Citizen” that strengthens the case against the usurper known as Barack Hussein Obama, by removing the soil jurisdiction and the mother from consideration, and shows that one must be created by a U.S. citizen father in order to qualify for the Office of President. (See previous article by Jedi Pauly at The Post and Email news, “The True Meaning and Interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” a Scientific Legal Theory“).  It is common knowledge that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

I now wish to provide the reader with further proof in the form of an analysis of Emer de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations that shows that his work does not support the notion that Article II requires one to be born of two citizen parents and also upon the soil jurisdiction of the country in order to qualify under Article II.  I will show that not only does Mr. Vattel clearly point out that one’s mother’s citizenship and the soil jurisdiction are irrelevant, and only one’s father is important in order to be considered a native of one’s country, but he also points out that all of one’s rights, including one’s political rights, are also obtained naturally from one’s father and not from soil or from one’s mother.  Also, I will show by the simple application of the concept of natural sovereignty, and by the common customs and laws supported by Mr. Vattel, and by the other requirements of Article II, that it is physically impossible to have any conflict of allegiance, or foreign allegiances owed at birth, due to foreign soil jurisdictions or from a foreign mother that can possibly create any loyalty issues for Article II purposes.

Let us now examine closely Mr. Vattel and the true title and details of his works that practically every attorney on this issue quotes and misrepresents in order to make their failed and unsupported assertions that Vattel is responsible for defining the “undefined” specific American Constitutional law term, written in English, “natural born Citizen”, or that Vattel can be used to define Article II as requiring both parents to be citizens and also born on U.S. soil.

Here is an excerpt from the Online Library of Liberty regarding Mr. Vattel:

Emer de Vattel (1714-1767) was one of the foremost theorists of natural law in the 18th century.  His writings were widely read in the American colonies and had a profound impact on the thinking of the framers of the American constitution.

Notice that Mr. Vattel is “one of the foremost theorists of natural law in the 18th century”.  Now look at the complete title of Mr. Vattel’s treatise that is so often quoted by so many attorneys:

The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns

Notice “Principles of the Law of Nature” and “applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns”.

Natural Law is a scientific objective study of Nature as it applies to the functioning of society and societal norms and customs.  Natural Law is a science and Mr. Vattel is writing about Nature and scientific principles as they apply to the common laws and customs of societies and governments and Sovereigns, which includes the citizens of a Sovereign country, who are themselves sovereign as long as they are not under a monarchy political system so that they are not just citizen “subjects” of the king without their natural political sovereign status recognized.  Mr. Vattel is not relating information about the positive law jurisdiction.  His entire treatise is about the Natural Law jurisdiction, not the “Positive” Law jurisdiction.  Mr. Vattel is writing about the Natural Rights of the People, not about their legal privileges that come from the Positive Law jurisdiction from statutes.

Notice the title of his work in the original French:  “Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle; Appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains. ”  This title is literally translated as “The Right of the People, or Principles of the Natural Law, applied to the conduct and of the affairs of the Nations and the Sovereigns”, which has become shortened in translation to merely “The Law of Nations”  (see this link for a picture of the original frontispiece).  It is clear that Vattel’s work is describing the Natural Law jurisdiction and the influence of Nature on the affairs of Nations and the Sovereign political entities that make up a Nation.  His work must be viewed through the lens of natural law scientific theory in order for its words to make any sense, so that one can understand the proper meaning of what Mr. Vattel writes.

“Le Droit des Gens” literally means “the Right of the People”, which is referring to Natural Rights, not Legal Rights which are privileges.

Next, look at the title of Chapter 19 of Book 1. In English, “Of our Native Country, and several Things that relate to it.” In the original French, “De la Patrie et de diverses matières qui y ont rapport.” Notice that the word “la Patrie” translated into English as “Native Country”, in French of course means Homeland, but of particular interest is that this word actually quite literally means Fatherland. Throughout Vattel, especially in this chapter, it is continuously stressed that the country of one’s allegiance is the country of one’s father.

Now in this light we can look at the passage from Mr. Vattel and carefully analyze it sentence by sentence through the proper lens of Natural Law in the absence of a Positive Law jurisdiction, and with respect to the original French. Here is Chapter 19 section 212:

§212. 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. [Emphasis added]

Now examine the sentence that is being misinterpreted and misrepresented by many of the attorneys on this issue. In English, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” In the original French: “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nès dans ley pays, de Parens Citoyens.” This literally translates as, “The Naturals (natives, Nature-produced), or Indigenous are those who are born in the country, of Citizen Parents.” Nowhere does Mr. Vattel use the English term that has been so debated nowadays, “natural born citizen”, nor its exact French equivalent. Mr. Vattel never implies that there exists a legal term called “natural born citizen”, nor does Mr. Vattel ever make any original definitions or attempts to define such a legal term of “natural born citizen”, but somehow this is what has been asserted by so many attorneys and so many others, who are trying to use Vattel to make a direct substitution of legal terms, which is entirely inappropriate and unjustified. Not only is Vattel not even defining any legal term “natural born Citizen”, but it is only the Natural Law jurisdiction, and history, and the Declaration of Independence and the concept of sovereignty, that defines and is controlling of Article II and “natural born Citizen”.

Mr. Vattel is simply describing a fact of natural reality as an observation of Nature; of how Nature herself already defines a person to be a native of his or her country. By examining the rest of this section 212, it becomes obvious that Mr. Vattel goes on to further describe the natural conditions of a native citizenship in the absence of any competing positive law jurisdictions, or need of statutory constructions, or artificial authorities, and he is only describing the natural relationship to one’s father in the absence of the native mother or native soil, which are implied by Mr. Vattel to be totally irrelevant to be considered a native of the country. Examine:

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 [means that both male and female children gets their citizenship and natural political rights from their fathers]. 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 [now it is implied that Mr. Vattel is only talking about the male citizens who enter into society], reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;… [Emphasis added]

It is abundantly clear that Mr. Vattel is describing the natural condition in the absence of, or without relying on, the native mother; of how Nature defines one to be a native citizen of the country as being inherited from one’s father as a natural political right, and that the citizenship in the native country is defined and secured solely by the father, and, all of the rights, including the political rights that the children have, are due to the rights of the father that he passes on to his children. The mother is completely irrelevant under the natural law jurisdiction for indigenous citizenships or for the consideration of natural political rights. Mr. Vattel then goes on to remove the native soil and shows that the soil jurisdiction is also not involved with one being of the country:

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.” [Emphasis added]

And in case there is still any doubt, just examine a little further on in the same Chapter 19, section 215:

§215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country. It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; [Emphasis added]

There can be no doubt that Mr. Vattel has removed any consideration of any competing positive law jurisdiction “by the law of nature alone”. He makes it clear that the children inherit the political condition of the father, “children follow the condition of their father” which means the citizenship and the political rights of the father, “and enter into all their rights”. Then, Mr. Vattel shows that what Nature produces, the soil jurisdiction of foreign states, and the positive laws that govern the soil jurisdiction, cannot deny or remove the natural political rights that are inherited from Nature from a sovereign citizen father; “the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;”. Nature gives the child the inherited political condition and allegiance to the father’s country. This is what Vattel is clearly saying, and Vattel supports the reality that the mother and soil jurisdictions are not determining for the consideration of how one is a native of the country, which is solely defined by one’s father and his political condition, and that all of one’s natural political rights are inherited from one’s father, not from one’s mother or from soil jurisdictions. Since Mr. Vattel makes it clear that soil jurisdictions (positive law) cannot take away the natural political conditions and allegiances that Nature gives to the children via their fathers, let us examine the concept of natural sovereignty, and consider the other provisions of Article II, in order to prove that it is not physically possible to have any conflicting allegiances owed from foreign soil birth or from having a foreign mother.

Examine the Declaration of Independence. In particular the following passage and concept being conveyed:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” [Emphasis added]

“The separate and equal stations to which the Laws of Nature…entitle them…” is talking about the sovereign political status of the people as being “equal” to the sovereign political status and authority of the other competing sovereign in question which was the King of England, who was a sovereign, and his government in England, who were in direct conflict with the natural law jurisdiction and the natural sovereign political rights of the Colonists, as the Colonists were being denied their natural sovereign rights which is what prompted the Declaration of Independence and war.

Sovereigns are politically equal. One sovereign cannot order another sovereign around or lawfully take away the natural rights of other sovereigns. Sovereigns do not serve other masters. They are their own masters. You can only serve one master at a time. A sovereign is the author and source of the law or a monarch. This is the law dictionary definition. Therefore, it is not possible for a foreign mother who is an equal sovereign political authority to the father, or a foreign sovereign who controls the foreign soil jurisdiction of another country, to take away from a child what Nature gives to it that comes from the child’s sovereign father as an inherited natural right to citizenship in the father’s country, and to claim an owed political allegiance to the father’s country and to succeed to their fathers rights. Under the Natural Law jurisdiction, it is not physically possible to be a native of two countries simultaneously at birth. By common law and custom it must be recognized that either one or the other parent must be chosen as the conduit for naturally inherited citizenships and political allegiances. Mr. Vattel makes it clear that by common convention this is chosen to be from males, one’s father.

Also, just because you are born in a foreign land while your parents are on vacation does not mean that you are not a native of your father’s country, or that you lose your sovereign status, or that you are born owing political allegiance to a foreign jurisdiction just by being born on the foreign soil, and Vattel makes this clear. One need only examine Sections 216 and 217 to be enlightened to the natural fact of reality that one does not need to be born on the soil jurisdiction to be considered to be a native of one’s father’s country:

§216. Children born at sea. As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation: for the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere. [Emphasis added]

§217. Children born in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

Likewise, having a foreign mother cannot rob a child of his sovereign status that is inherited from his father and his natural right to claim a political allegiance to his father’s country inherited at birth and to succeed to his fathers rights. Any political rights due to a foreign mother will be controlled by the positive law jurisdiction with statutes and positive acts, and Vattel has already shown that the positive law jurisdiction cannot prevent or deny the natural political rights that come from our citizen fathers.

Here is another interesting observation of Nature, and logic, and common laws and customs that helps to prove that it is impossible to owe a political allegiance to a foreign state just because one’s mother is from a foreign country. When a female becomes pregnant, by common law and custom, this is considered the act of consummating a marriage. It has been customary under the natural law jurisdiction that the male marries the female that he impregnates. Again, by common law and custom, and also by the positive laws and statutory authority, when a foreign female marries, she takes the citizenship of the husband who will be the child’s father. Therefore, it is a matter of logic that when the child is born, both parents will naturally be citizens of the same country. This is not a requirement spelled out in Article II, but rather, it is just a natural consequence of Nature and common customs. This also proves that Nature provides a natural order that causes political rights to flow from males to their female wives, and from the father to both the male and female children offspring.

Here is one more interesting observation. Examine this definition of “Patriot” from the online Etymological Dictionary:

patriot 1590s, “compatriot,” from M.Fr. patriote (15c.), from L.L. patriota “fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Gk. patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers”, patris “fatherland,” from pater (gen. patros) “father,”

Notice the derivation from males (father) and not from females (mother).

Now we can see in the proper light of Natural Law and the correct reading of Vattel, that Mr. Vattel’s treatise does not support the proposition that there is a requirement in Article II that both parents must be citizens or that one must be born on the soil jurisdiction of the country. The principles of natural law elaborated by Mr. Vattel substantiate that Article II “natural born Citizen” is describing an indigenous or native sovereign citizen Son (male) who is created by birth inheritance (natural born) which implies only a citizen father is required; and after the 19th Amendment, the “Citizen” part of “natural born Citizen” is expanded to include indigenous or native sovereign citizen females (daughters) who are created by natural birth also to citizen fathers.

Thus a correct reading of Mr. Vattel’s treatise proves that the soil and the mother are irrelevant for Article II purposes. Article II requires one to inherit one’s natural political rights and allegiances from one’s father. When combined with the other provisions of Article II, which is that one must move back to the U.S. and be a U.S. citizen living in America for fourteen years prior to becoming President, this is deemed to be entirely sufficient to insure political allegiance to the U.S. and to not have any owed conflicting political allegiances. For all of these reasons, and by Article II, it is impossible to have any conflict in loyalties or owed political allegiances due to foreign soil jurisdictions or due to a foreign mother. The problem of loyalties and allegiances only arises when one is born to a foreign father, then one is not born a native son or daughter of the country as defined by the Laws of Nature and described by Mr. Vattel, and therefore cannot possibly qualify under Article II for the office of President. Such a child would be born as a native of the foreign father’s country which is the exact condition regarding Obama and why he does not qualify for the office of President.

It should now be obvious to the reader, that anyone, who actually reads the entirety of Vattel, and applies the natural scientific legal principles, along with the context and history of the formation of our Sovereign Republic form of government and its controlling foundational documents, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, and with deference to U.S. case law since the adoption of the Constitution, will not be able to find any support for the notion that Article II “natural born Citizen” creates a requirement that a candidate for the Office of President must be born of two citizen parents and also be born on U.S. soil jurisdiction. Also, it is now shown to be false and misleading to assert that “natural born Citizen” is “undefined” in the Constitution when Vattel makes it clear that “natural born Citizen” was never meant to be specifically defined in the Constitution because it was already defined in the Natural Law jurisdiction by the rules of Nature and common custom.

One can only surmise that it is from a lack of knowledge and an incomplete and superficial reading of Vattel by the so-called “authorities” of law, that these errors and misconceptions have been propagated, unless some other diabolical plot to delay and obstruct the truth and justice is afoot. It is abundantly clear that Article II only requires one to be born of a citizen father and to be a U.S. citizen who is living in the U.S. for fourteen years prior to being a candidate for the Office of President. The Framers of the Constitution obviously intended that this would be more than sufficient to sever any foreign allegiances and to protect loyalty and allegiance to the Constitution and to the United States. Furthermore, the fact that the laws of Nature render the mother and soil jurisdictions to be irrelevant eliminates any avenue that would allow foreign titles of nobility to be able to attain the Office of President and thereby create a monarchy instead of a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign Citizens.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials

33 Responses to He Blinded Them with Science

  1. ELmo

    Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

    To Paraphrase Bernard Baruch – One is entitled to his/ her own opinion but one is NOT entitled to his/ her own facts. Vattel is plain (if the English translation is correct); you simply have to read further to supply the context – Vattel is very CLEAR in stating what Dr. Pauly has pointed out. The condition of the Children follows that of the FATHER! What the framers intended may be something else entirely – but you can’t hang your hat on Vattel – It will come back to bite us all. It just isn’t there (in plain English).
    ELmo

  2. Jedi Pauly

    Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 9:05 AM

    Wrong Mick. The only reason that a positive act is required is because there are competing jurisdictions since there is only one parent who is a citizen. The positive act instructs government in how to recognize the natural rights of the child when there are competing jurisdictions. The positive acts of Congress and the Courts interpretation follow the Natural Law dictates. The positive acts do not create the citizenship, they just recognize it.

  3. Jedi Pauly

    Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 8:59 AM

    Vattel is not “foreign law”. Vattel is describing Natural Law which is common to all nations. You do not understand.

  4. Mick

    Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 8:10 AM

    The passages about the father were way before women had any political or legal rights. You’re just wrong. A child born to a US Citizen male and a French female in France is certainly born with dual allegiance, which will be settled by place of residence at majority. Dual allegiance means not natural born (born citizen of federal common law), and not eligible for POTUS.

  5. Jedi Pauly

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM

    Not true if you have a citizen father as your only parent. You missed the entire point of what Vattel has shown to be the Natural condition of reality.

  6. Jedi Pauly

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 7:11 PM

    I am not at all advocating “that a “citizen at birth” is a natural born Citizen”. I don’t know how you get that. I am saying exactly the opposite. All I have show is that a citizen who is created by a citizen FATHER is a “natural born Citizen” at birth. Those born in foreign countries to citizen fathers are indeed natives or “indigenous” to the father’s country. That is exactly what Vattel says, and that is also exactly what U.S. case law has said, and every country on earth for thousands of years have said the same thing. This has been the law forever and nothing has ever changed that. You are completely at odds with the rest of the universe of law. I guess you missed the underlined bolded quote I provided from Vattel;

    “for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights” or

    “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;”

    Your problem is the same that most nay sayers have and that is that you do not realize that in America the People are SOVEREIGN and a sovereign citizen father takes his sovereign jurisdiction with him wherever he goes and no other foreign jurisdiction can trump a sovereign of their rights, or as Vattel says:

    “the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;”

    Nature gives the child a sovereign political status inherited from a sovereign citizen father and no foreign soil jurisdiction can take that away. Your analysis is WRONG.

  7. Jedi Pauly

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 6:48 PM

    Yes. I believe so based on what Mario Apuzzo has told me.

  8. Jedi Pauly

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 6:44 PM

    Wrong. It is your analysis that is nonsense. The statutes do not make you a citizen. This is the common mistake everyone is making by believing that your natural rights are a grant from government. Government is not the source of natural political rights. They do not grant you a citizenship from your citizen father. That was the entire point of the War of 1776. You would be a native citizen by common right and Nature as long as you had a citizen father, even if there was no government at all. The statutes only recognize your natural right to a citizenship that already pre-exists. The statutes are instructions to government to recognize your natural citizenship status, not a grant.

    Our government is not a king who grants privileges. Your analysis turns the relationship between government and the governed on it’s head. Citizenship is a Natural Political Right first and foremost from your father, and then there are legal rights to citizenship for everyone else. Your viewpoint is what is nonsense. Your viewpoint makes the government God. You are wrong. Next you will be telling us that the “Bill of Rights” grants people rights. No it does not. The rights are already pre-existing in the natural law jurisdiction. The Bill of Rights are instructions and limitations directed at the government intended to protect your natural rights that are already there. Same with your natural political rights that are INHERITED from a citizen father. Nice try but you are way off base.

  9. Kingskid

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 1:01 PM

    Sorry, Sharon, but I totally agree with Mick and wondered about the same things he has stated. Jedi has made his point many times over; however, his illogical thesis is obviously wearing thin with some of us. He has had his say; can we not read more cogent editorials? Thanks.
    ————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Please send them in!

  10. Mick

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 11:31 AM

    Jedi’s “essay”, I suspect, is purely self interest, as he was probablty born overseas of a US Citizen father. Children born overseas of 1 US Citizen parent are made citizens by Congressional Statute, not Natural Law, thus they are not natural born Citizens, eligible to be POTUS.

  11. Mick

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM

    It is not censorship. He has already pontificated this exact point already, and your repeat publication gives his misguided theory credence. Those born of ONE Citizen father parent and a foreign national mother overseas are made “citizens” by Congressional naturalization law (Title 8 Sec. 1401) . They are not natural born Citizens by Natural Law. If they were natural born Citizens then there would be no need for a statute to make them citizens. Come on, lets keep our eye on the ball. Jedi’s theory is nonsense. You should at least know enough to make an editorial comment casting doubt. His “essay” is designed to blur the meanings of “citizen at birth” and “natural born Citizen”.

  12. Pete

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

    To my fellow bloggers and Jedi,
    Vattel defined ‘Natural’ as it applied to socio-economic conditions of the 1700′s. During that time, Citizenship and Titles were passed by the Father, not the mother. I agree with this assumption. The ‘intent’ of the Constitutional signers has NEVER been questioned, that those assuming the position of POTUS must not have another title, allegiance, or claim to another country, from birth.

    The 20th century has a different socio-economic background. Women have equal rights, and included in those rights MUST be accepted to pass Citizenship and other Property. Thus, I agree with those whom state that a Woman of legal age has the right to pass on Citizenship and Property. Herein lies an inherent conflict, what if the mother and father are Citizens of different countries? In modern America, that child can assume the citizenship of one, or both. However, since the child is born of conflicting rights, citizenship, and titles, he/she can never claim eligibility for POTUS.

    John Jay, George Washington, and many other Patriots understood the special position of elected commander in chief, and the dangers of dual allegiances and titles. The ‘Constitutional Definition of NBC’ as it pertains to POTUS eligibility, must provide for a person whom was NEVER born with conflicting loyalties. This would be defined as a child born with only one country claiming them, and with the ability to only claim one country, from the time of birth.

    Obama fails the NBC challenge for multiple reasons. First, he had conflicted loyalties at birth legally (his legal father was Barrack Obama Sr). Second, he was born a British subject after 1790 and has claimed this openly. Third, his mother was underage to provide legal transfer of US citizenship at the time. Fourth, Obama has likely travelled on a foreign government’s passport as an adult, swearing allegiance to a foreign power. Fifth, he likely accepted government aid and support for being ‘foreign’.

    Most certainly, the SCOTUS is charged with ‘interpretation’ of the Constitution. Thus far, the SCOTUS has refused to perform their Constitutional Duty in this matter. I encourage such a discourse. I remain confident that the history and body of the Constitution, correspondence between John Jay and Washington, Washington’s and John Jay’s understanding of Vattel, all point to an understanding that divided loyalties upon birth, after 1790, would be unacceptable for eligibility as it pertains to POTUS. The impetus of history and correspondence, as well as statements upon adoption of the 14th amendment, all point to this reality.

  13. Mick

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 10:06 AM

    Vattel’s explanation of Natural Law is Universal Law, not Foreign law.

  14. Mick

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM

    Sharon, I am very disappointed that you have allowed “Jedi” to pontificate at length AGAIN. What he is advocating by the “back door” is that a “citizen at birth” is a natural born Citizen. He is doing it in a very underhanded way. The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, and the dropping of “natural born” from the later proves the intent of the term.
    The key term is “indigenes”. Those born in a foreign country are certainly not indigenous to the US. I may suggest that “Jedi” is trying to reconcile his own birth circumstance of a US father in a foreign land to being eligible to be POTUS.
    ——————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: But does censorship serve us better? This is a publication based on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Anyone is welcome to write his or her own rebuttal to Jedi’s work or his or her understanding of the term “natural born Citizen,” as Thinkwell has taken the time to do. It seems that Americans are so accustomed to a censored media that we do not react well to an uncensored publication, except for our posted restrictions on obscenity and adult content. Anyone performing research on that or any other topic which is cogently expressed and appropriate to our mission can submit an editorial. However, many people are not willing to take the time to do so.

  15. A pen

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 9:00 AM

    Is it foreign law if it is in the constitution as a reference for congress to act in light of? The Law of Nations is indeed stated as a reference. That is further proved by the use of the unique phrase “natural born citizen”. At some point you must admit we are a nation constructed from foreign laws. What is unique is that we the people retain the ultimate power to control the government we chose. That power of control is the law known as the constitution. Subverting it is not political it is treason.

  16. A pen

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 8:51 AM

    Well done. What is missing is the actual intent of the founders to imply a strict adherence to the Vattel treatise. What was the premise of limiting the powers granted the presidency? Simple, to never allow anyone who may have even the slightest reason to adhere to a foreign idea, law, custom or government even secretly.

    The role of impeachment is to discover facts not publicly known and to act upon them. Refusing to investigate what are facts now known to the public as a violation of the law of the land is treason in that they adhere to an enemy. What is worse is that the acts being perpetrated are unmistakable as an attempt to destroy our culture by dissembling our borders and thus the ability to hold majority control over our desired form of governance.

    Once we the people know of an ambition secreted from us we have a right and duty to move to protect ourselves from danger. Our first act is to seek just redress from the high courts. Second we petition congress for redress. Third , once the rights to due process and proper representation have been proved to be in contrast to the principles of our constitution we have another right to exercise. We may convene a convention just as our founders did and seek to assemble a government which will serve us. This act is what the progressives have also done but by force of deception. Their cavails against the constitution propagated by their media cohorts are dishonest, violate the laws of nature and seek only to empower a select group intent upon issuing fiats for as many nations as they may subdue.

    Monday we shall see if there is reason to seek a new government. Let us hope we are not set upon by the tyrants while engaging in that pursuit. I do believe the Tea Party is just the foundation to build upon for solidarity and proper discourse. That is exactly why Obama and co. see it as the enemy. They intend to treat it as such and IMO we should proceed with that foremost in our minds.

  17. RacerJim

    Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 8:49 AM

    Thank you for your service Navy Pilot. Tom, Johnson and you are absolutely correct.

    Sad to say even my West Point graduate, long since in the private sector, younger brother is in complete and utter denial as to what has transpired since Obama announced his candidacy and, moreover, what it will truely mean if the SCOTUS ignores the U.S. Constitution as originally written.

    Acquisition, elevate, safety off!

    Army Air Defense Artillery
    Nike Hercules Radar and Guidance Electronics Technician

  18. PatriotForLiberty

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 11:16 PM

    I just don’t understand how anybody thinks we should use foreigners’ laws in our UNITED STATES. Who cares what a French guy said? We don’t use ALIEN laws in our great nation and anybody who thinks we should is not a PATRIOT! Even the great Justice Alito says so…

    “I don’t think that it’s appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution.” – Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Confirmation Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006)

  19. RJ

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 9:59 PM

    A question for Jedi. Was a woman who was married to a male U.S. Citizen in 1789, considered to be a Citizen of the United States?

    RJ

  20. Navy Pilot

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 8:25 PM

    Tom is absolutely right. One thing that puzzles me is – if the Constitution is “Dead” if SCOTUS does not uphold the Constitution, as originally written, then there is no, zero, basis for any of the three branches of government to exist. SCOTUS, by an act of not validating the Constitution would, be in essence, be invalidating itself.

    Monday may turn out to be a very historic date for the Republic. It might be a thow-back to 1776. Unfortunately, many Americans haven’t a clue as to what is currently transpiring.

    Acquisition, roll-in, master arm on!

  21. Johnson

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 7:55 PM

    Tom you are the best let the Revolution Began

  22. Toria

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 7:37 PM

    This is a great history lesson and training video click to see video
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jedipauly#p/c/D36986E59C7CA221/0/Q70eS-uecYM

    True Meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ pt1(1of2)

  23. RJ

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 6:49 PM

    In regards to Jedy’s essay … and his look at the original French … I think he skipped an important phrase which helps us understand what Vattel was writing about in Chapter 19 .

    “…with respect to the original French. Here is Chapter 19 section 212″, Jedy Pauly should have also looked at the original French title of Vattel’s Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212 which reads:

    “Des citoyens et naturels.”

    And then read this at TheBirthers.org website …

    http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/locvattel.html

    and this …

    http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    RJ

  24. Toria

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 6:09 PM

    I agree with drkate, especially the last paragraph. It is Critical that the Supreme Court make a decision on Obama/Soetoro, they were also complicit, along with all (each and every one of them) of Congress, both Federal and State, include the Secretary of State, both Federal and State, and the political parties. Adding to the perfect storm, was the media and voter fraud. I take reference to “competition” two ways, the interruption and the campaign. In other words, just because ‘authorities’ whose job was to know but apparently played the stupid act, there is No Free Pass and NO we will not get over it and move on. Wrong is wrong, Illegal is still Illegal. Prosecute to the maximum extent of the law. Obama is suppose to be a Constitutional lawyer, however I doubt that, therefore his actions were intentional, as were the Democratic Party. Intent to defraud the nation. Count 2 treason, with a motive to “Change” the United States, as we have always known it to be. None of these illegal acts should go unpunished towards everyone involved. Now there is a use for Gitmo, to house them all.

    The Monkey is on the back of Justice Roberts, having committed the act of ex parte, refusing to take a position as the highest court in the land and swearing in, not once but twice. Could not get that right either. We the People will not accept, it happened get over it. This will be dealt with and is not going away and we do not negotiate with terrorist.

  25. AuntieMadder

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 5:36 PM

    Right on, Kingskid!

  26. Kingskid

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 4:40 PM

    ELmo, re your cmt: “It does not infer “Mother as well as Father” – further reading supplies the proper context – Citizenship of the child follows the condition of the FATHER – without regard to MOTHER).” If your hypothesis were correct, i.e., the use of the plural “parents” refers to the plural “children”, then it would have been highly likely that Vattel would have specifically stated “fathers” as the plural noun for the children. Instead, he used “parents”, one mother and one father. Sorry, but you guys are bound and determined to pull up by the roots “mother and country’ out of the NBC interpretation. Y’all are waaay out there, but hey, it just gives us something to rebut.

  27. MichaelN

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM

    As you noted (per your study of Vattel’s document) that the mother also enjoys the citizenship of the father, then the interpretation of Article II for a requirement that both parents (plural) be citizens, is clearly in line with Vattel.

    You wrote: “when a foreign female marries, she takes the citizenship of the husband who will be the child’s father. Therefore, it is a matter of logic that when the child is born, both parents will naturally be citizens of the same country.”

    Ergo -The father cannot have a child without the mother, therefore it is appropriate that plural parents is a correct interpretation of Article II.

  28. Tom the veteran

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 3:34 PM

    The decision will be released on Monday, November 29th, around 10 a.m. regarding the Supreme Court Conference of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

    This is the whole enchilada folks! If the Supreme Court elects not to hear this case, then the U.S. Constitution will be officially dead! And if that’s the case, we need only to refer back to what JFK said:

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

    Don’t tread on Me
    For God and Country

  29. Kevin J. Lankford

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM

    I think we can all appreciate this in-depth analysis of “Article II, Natural Born Citizen.” Could this not also evidence the fallacious opinion of so many, who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil even though their parents are here illegally and owe allegiance to another country. Hence the erroneous term “anchor baby.”

  30. Harry H

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

    There is no doubt that Barack Obama is a foreign-fathered usurper whose election to the presidency was a criminal act of fraud upon this nation. I agree with Jedi Pauly that Obama’s paternity is the key to his ineligibility; Obama is a natural born subject of Great Britain, since he was born in the British Colony of Kenya to a Kenyan father.

    However, in all his fancy, over-zealous footwork Pauly places too great a weight upon special cases such as citizens born in a foreign country or on a ship or while daddy is serving overseas, from which exceptional cases he extrapolates to the larger context of “natural born,” and Pauly seems utterly blind to the difference between being a natural born citizen (“. . . natural-born citizens, are those born IN THE COUNTRY, of parents who are citizens”–Vattel #212) and being “REPUTED born in the country” (Vattel #217).

    Pauly is so zealously committed to his pet interpretation that he even ignores his own literal translation from the French–“The Naturals (natives, Nature-produced), or Indigenous are those who are born IN THE COUNTRY, of Citizen Parents”–and then leaps off into irrelevant speculation about the exact applicability of the term “natural born citizen” when it is obvious that Vattel’s “Naturals” are nothing other that what Article II means by “natural born Citizen.”

    Sorry, Pauly, but home is still central to being a homelander/nbc, though in special cases one may be “reputed” a homelander even though one is not actually a born homelander. For a president the Framers wanted a real homelander, not a “reputed” homelander. Soil and blood are both required for one to be naturally, automatically, indisputably a natural born citizen. Granted that it is the father’s blood that is determinative, since a mother was naturally bound to her husband’s country–at least in the good old days of yore.

    It is consequently important to note that Michelle Obama and others have named BO’s homeland as Kenya. We have also seen a highly credible Kenyan birth certificate for BO, and his Kenyan birthplace has significance for the question of his eligibility. To sweep BO’s birthplace aside is misguided and irresponsible.

  31. ELmo

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 2:54 PM

    I agree with Dr. Pauly.

    This is a thorough analysis.

    The “Legal Beagles” can’t hang their hats on Vattel (they should have read further) – the use of the plural “parents” refers to the plural “children” (It does not infer “Mother as well as Father” – further reading supplies the proper context – Citizenship of the child follows the conditon of the FATHER – without regard to MOTHER).

    However, the people of this country have a right to know that the person sitting in the Highest Constitutional Office is legally qualified to be there. The Supremes need to decide this issue.
    ELmo

  32. Kingskid

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM

    Jedi, I think you are on the wrong track, for all your many words,–

    You wrote: “Now we can see in the proper light of Natural Law and the correct reading of Vattel, that Mr. Vattel’s treatise does not support the proposition that there is a requirement in Article II that both parents must be citizens … [wrong, Vattel clearly states what you have already quoted and then casually dismissed, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."]

    Your premise that natural born citizen status can be conferred upon a child solely by his father, irrespective of who the mother is or where the child is born, leads to the illogical conclusion that a military man who impregnates a Russian woman in Russia, for instance, confers U.S. natural born citizen status upon that child. Poppycock. That child may be entitled to U.S. citizenship status, not as a natural born citizen, but as a statutory one.

    It is really easy for you to stand on the sidelines of this horrific and dangerous situation that we have in this country with a Constitutionally ineligible man squatting in our White House, and pontificate on what you think are the finer points of the legal definition of NBC. No one likes a blowhard who disses the several attorneys who have put their lives on hold while trying everything in their power to get this issue adjudicated. If you think that the NBC attorneys have got it all wrong, what is holding you back from presenting your own case to the courts? Go for it; we’ll await the results with bated breath. Put up or shut up!

  33. drkate

    Friday, November 26, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    Very good article. Much of what is said here does not have to be in contrast to the ‘wrong interpretation of every other so called authority on this issue’…the thesis stands on its own, and it is equally possible, from a scientific perspective and as applied to the use of Vattel to construct the US Constitution, that the other readings, interpretations (i.e., two citizen parents), and applications of Vattel are equally as valid. In the revolutionary context of the construction of the constitution for the US, the interpretation of two citizen parents is entirely valid. This is indeed supported by the thesis of this article, that natural born citizenship arises from the father, and further, supports the contention of both uses of Vattel, that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

    In one of the most important times in the history of the United States, the concern is addressing the usurpation now, not asserting that one use of Vattel is improper while the other is correct. This is about the Constitution, not competition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>