It was a good day for Justice in Vermont!
— H. Brooke Paige
H. Brooke Paige tried to impress the Vermont Supreme Court yesterday with a thick pile of books1 that he at one point attempted to approach and hand to them, violating their personal judicial space, and according to the Burlington Free Press, raising some alarm.
Paige wanted to make it clear to the justices that he was not one of those crazy birthers, saying:
Don’t pay any attention to them. The birther argument is just a sheer flight of fancy.2
Paige is one of those crazy Vattelians. Paige focuses just on what supports his theories, interpreting the evidence as if the theory were fact, and excluding everything against it, and so cannot objectively evaluate evidence. The judges were more interested in the law. Reportedly birther attorney Mario Apuzzo, who has argued classic birther conspiracy theories on behalf of Charles Kerchner, helped Paige with his arguments.
The Vermont Superior Court previously rejected Paige’s definition of “natural born citizen,” repeating the conclusions of many other courts on this question.
1Vattel’s The Law of Nations
2Quote of the Day for sure
While it’s understood by (almost) everyone here, may I say: “one of those crazy FAUX-Vattelians…”
i’m back home in vermont, anything i can do to help ??… lol
Perhaps you could communicate to the gentleman that no French legal scholar in 200+ years has agreed with his bizarre interpretation of Vattel?
Should we could the Vermont superior court as 11. Or should we wait for the decision by the Vermont supreme court?
Welcome back Scotty don’t. Maybe you could start by teaching Paige how to read.
Well, if you see any local media coverage of the case, let us know.
On my list, the Superior Court decision is 10.
Vattelian or Vattelist? Which one is the proper term?
I vote for “nutter.”
I vote for “crank.”
I also think that “crank” is a very appropriate word, although I try to use it sparingly.
Calling someone a “crank” can be an example of the propaganda technique of “poisoning the well” and some people are offended by such tactics. When I use the term in a discussion, I am trying to “foster healthy skepticism,” warning folks to listen critically and not to assume that something that has the form of a scholarly treatise, really is.
Curiously, the people who insist on a literal reading of the Constitution rarely allow external documents to be used to figure out what the founding fathers actually meant. If this ever did go to SCOTUS, the majority would, if they were consistent, say that meaning is derived first from the actual words, and then and only then, from contemporaneous literature known to have been considered when the Constitution was written. As Vattel’s thinking hadn’t been expressed in terms of the “two parents” rule, and as it would have disqualified many of the then-inhabitants of the US, it seems very unlikely that they’d adopt it in constuiring the meaning of “natural born”.
Using the Birther Scorecard, this is number 201, not including Hollander v. McCain. I prefer to use the larger number of birther related eligibility defeats. It has more emotional impact.
Yeah, that always makes me scratch my head too.
Birther: Two citizen parents is a requirement of being a natural born citizen!
Rational person: But that is nowhere in the Constitution!
Birther: Vattel said it!
Rational person: But Vattel didn’t write the Constitution!
Rational person who speaks French: And Vattel never actually said that! Its a mistranslation of what he actually said!
Birther: You’re both gay commie Muslims! Get out of my America! Go back to licking envelopes!!!(Not sure why birthers hurl that one like an insult, but I see it a lot at ORYR)
I vote for Vatteloid.
Re: “On my list, the Superior Court decision is 10.”
Many thanks. Is there a useful quotation from it?
Paige v. Condos, Vermont Secretary of State and Obama, Docket No. 611-8-12 (Vermont Superior Court, Washington Unit, September 21, 2012)(decision denying motion for temporary restraining order to prevent secretary of state printing the general election ballot with President Obama’s name on it)(State’s motion to dismiss, granted, November 14, 2012.)
:
“Injunctive relief regarding the printing of the general election ballot must be denied for lack of any … reasonable probability of success on the merits. The myriad versions of the claim that President Obama is ineligible for office because he is not a “natural born citizen” have been litigated throughout the country exhaustively. They have never succeeded, usually on standing or jurisdictional bases. The version of the claim advanced by Mr. Paige ─ that President Obama is not a natural born citizen because only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth ─ is not novel. It has fared no better than the other versions of the claim. …
Even if the court is to reach the substance of his claim, Mr. Paige has no reasonable probability of succeeding. The Indiana Court of Appeals has addressed and conclusively rejected the same argument that Mr. Paige raises here in a thorough and well reasoned decision. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). In short, relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases demonstrate that the question of who is a “natural born citizen” under the U.S. Constitution is answered in the common law. The common law of England, the American colonies, and later the United States, all support one interpretation only: “that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Id. at 688. The Indiana Court’s reasoning is highly persuasive, thus far, Mr. Paige presents no analysis undermining it, and the court has found no persuasive authorities to the contrary.”
Sure. You can send me some maple syrup. That’d help me out.
If you meant help with this Paige nonsense, none is needed. As with all birther nonsense, this will be dealt with properly by the Court, paving the way for more birther nonsense.
Crank is as crank does.
One would think that the written decision referenced above was a sufficiently convincing rendition of “No, Hell No”, but as is usually the case, when denied by the courts, advocates like Paige then go off the reservation and start pulling all sorts of arguments essentially out of thin air. The problem is that arguments fashioned out of thin air generally do not fare well in a court of law, especially when confronted with 150+ years of case law.
Vermont Court Should Base Its Decision on a Firm “de novo” Examination!
It is important to note that Judge Bent relied principally upon the dicta of Judge Brown at the end of that Courts’ ruling in the “Motion to Dismiss” in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana 916 N.E. 2d 678 which was by no means conclusive as to the definitional issue and in the end conflates and confuses the meanings of the two distinct and different types of citizenship recognized in our nation, i.e. “Citizens of the United States” and “natural born Citizens”. In the underlying ruling of the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark 19 U.S. 662. SCOTUS addressed its understanding of Wong’s status as a “Citizen of the United States”. Further SCOTUS informs us that through Minor and Wong Kim Ark that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite this fact, Judge Brown, in Ankeny, found “his” definition in the Fourteenth Amendment in the Wong Kim Ark’s holding, which only found Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the amendment and not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” For the Vermont Courts to rely on the writings of Judge Brown in Ankeny, rather than to make a “de novo” review of the underlying legacy of the rulings of SCOTUS, is to place reliance in the hands of a Indianan Appeals Court’s Judge (as Judge Bent has done) and while this ruling may be “of interest” , the Vermont Courts are under absolutely no obligation to rely upon it. In the underlying Superior Court action, here in Vermont, the Plaintiff (now Appellant) submitted the, then newly published, “Memorandum of Law” – “Barack Obama is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Nor a ‘Citizen of the United States’, at the Time of the Adoption of this Constitution”, a far more detailed and reasoned study into the SCOTUS legacy of the meaning of “natural born Citizen[ship]”. The Vermont Supreme Court should make a “fresh review” of the underlying history and reach its own scholarly conclusion.
A Good Day for Justice in Vermont!
H. Brooke Paige
I will wear my “Vattelian” label with Pride, Thank You!
H. Brooke Paige
Vatellite. Like satellite.
I prefer Vattelians, like Reptilians…
That’s why I prefer Vatteloids…
Sounds like a Space Ghost villain.
I had a more fundament-al connotation in mind.
If you want to persuade a court that they should re-examine an issue, it is highly advisable to explain in your filing how they might have misinterpreted evidence or arguments in the past.
Simply demanding a “de novo” examination (I love how would-be-lawyers seem to think that the liberal use of Latin phrases confers gravitas on their filings) from a court that has indicated that it intends to rely on existing state and Federal case law is hardly a winning strategy.
Which comes across especially funny if they don’t know the actual meaning nor can properly spell it (it’s good fun to watch birthers misspell “sua sponte”, “prima facie” or other Latin legal terms).
Yup, that comes second only to citing entire pages of the law as if the court needed to be schooled about it.
The phrase that properly and ironically sums these two points up is: ius novit curia (“the court knows the law”, i.e. no need to cite it verbatim).
To quote Virgil: ab uno disce omnes.
(A good classical education is never wasted.)
So, Brookey
Do tell, how does being told, GTFOOMC, step back from the bench, your deluded somehow equate as “A Good Day for Justice in Vermont!”
Seriously, you got your ass handed to you on a platter, in the reality based world that makes it a humiliating loss.
As for your insane drivel about WKA, kindly explain how come EVEN IN THE DISSENT the court acknowledged that by so ruling it allowed WKA to run for President..?
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
You are aware that over 200 cases since 2008 around Obama as President have been rejected by the courts.
What makes YOU more qualified than over 200 judges including the Supreme Court..?
A “fresh review” would result in the following:
1. There is no evidence that Vattel was used to determine citizenship in the United States, and most especially, not the NBC clause in the Constitution (and what about all the other parts like, restricting gun ownership).
2. The little paragraph from Vattel does not say what you think it says and admits the English do not follow it.
3. Those words not specifically defined in the Constitution find their meaning in the common law of the period. Thus, you are back to the Calvin Case onward, just as explained in WKA.
There is no need for Vermont to do a “fresh review” since it only takes them to where many have gone before.
I am assuming that Brooke’s memorandum was based on the work of the esteemed DUI lawyer Mario Apuzzo for the same, completely impossible argument is being made. We can put aside everything we know about the case law for a second and look only to the confusion expressed between “Citizen of the United States” and “Natural Born Citizen”. Neither Putzie nor Brookey seem to understand that “Citizen of the United States” is an umbrella term, what we now simply call Citizen, which encompasses both forms of citizenship (natural born and naturalized). Clearly and obviously, one can not be a Natural Born Citizen without also being a Citizen of the United States. For some reason, neither Putzie nor Brookey can grasp this simple fact. To argue otherwise means that they believe people who are eligible to be congressmen and senators are not eligible to be President. That is the only logical conclusion that can be made from their arguments. That alone destroys any semblance of merit to their theories.
I asked Putzie that straight up and he refused to answer, just like he refused to answer anyone’s questions.
I am assuming that Brooke’s memorandum was based on the work of the esteemed DUI lawyer Mario Apuzzo for the same, completely impossible argument is being made. We can put aside everything we know about the case law for a second and look only to the confusion expressed between “Citizen of the United States” and “Natural Born Citizen”. Neither Putzie nor Brookey seem to understand that “Citizen of the United States” is an umbrella term, what we now simply call Citizen, which encompasses both forms of citizenship (natural born and naturalized). Clearly and obviously, one can not be a Natural Born Citizen without also being a Citizen of the United States. For some reason, neither Putzie nor Brookey can grasp this simple fact. To argue otherwise means that they believe people who are eligible to be congressmen and senators are not eligible to be President. That is the only logical conclusion that can be made from their arguments. That alone destroys any semblance of merit to their theories.
I asked Putzie that straight up and he refused to answer, just like he refused to answer anyone’s questions.
i would be happy to, i’m still trying to figure out why all of you are spending so much time and effort on all of this.
so far i haven’t seen anything on wcax or wptz… not that i would expect to, maybe the burlington free press. for now i’m just happy to be in the semi-banned semi-professional birther category here at the forum, we can continue the dialog.
actually… here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/vermont-supreme-court-hears-case.html
i don’t know sam hemingway personally, but he’s been with the free press for decades, i think.
Re: ” That alone destroys any semblance of merit to their theories.”
What I think destroys any merit to the two-parent theory is that it is based on the assumption that the US-born children of foreigners were not and are not just as good as the US-born children of US citizens. If the writers of “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal…” had thought that the US-born children of foreigners were not as good as the US-born children of US citizens, in contradiction to the principles of the Declaration, surely they would have told us.
There goes another guy in the comments over there (on the BFP site) arguing he understands Vattel better than 200 years of scholars.
I’m too tired to argue.
What makes some Americans have the hubris of thinking they’re the only ones who understand a 17th century legal treatise from another culture written in another language — without being willing or able to quote a single legal source over 200 years bolstering their interpretation?
I have been on French forums for well over a decade and have seen the normal quota of conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers, and other lunatics, but i have never seen French crazies pretending to discuss with authority something written by, say, Thomas Jefferson or John Marshall.
I’m constantly amazed by the mix of ignorance and arrogance.
Brooks just wants the Court to decide de lege ferenda not de lege lata and that the Court fiat justitia ruat caelum.
Quelle surprise.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
(excerpt) “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus
Welcome to America. It’s a unique American blend of fundamental Christianity, defiant ignorance – I’m looking at you, Sarah Palin – anti-progress, and an anti-intellectual undercurrent.
Alabama governor Robert Bentley: “Gov. Robert Bentley (R) probably didn’t plan to kick off his inaugural term with a religious quarrel but he fostered one when he informed non-Christians at a Monday afternoon event that “…if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister…”
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2011/01/gov_robert_bentley_what_baptists_thought.html
But Mr. Paige, you haven’t made any “fresh” proposition. Or did Justice Skoglund detect a twinkle in your eye as you…approached?
Because it is entertaining and often educational.
Why do you keep coming back?
And where was Mario? Did he not want to get involved?
It’s fun, entertaining and the court may even rule against Mario’s ‘thesis’ but I believe the Court will merely side-step the issue and rule on the mootness and lack of jurisdiction/standing.
Birther Catch-22:
People refute you: “Why are you making an effort to refute us if we allegedly are so wrong?”
People don’t refute you: “Nobody can refute us, our evidence is rock-solid.”
*duh*
—-
Another inconsistency:
It’s the most important case in the history of the country!
Why are you spending time on this?
Well it is Fun to Read All of the Inspired Thoughts from the “Dr. Conspiracy” Society.
I will attempt to address several of your inquiries:
The renowned Article II Constitutional Scholar, Mr. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. was not necessary to effectively defend my position against Mr. Todd Daloz, Esq., the youthful Assistant Attorney General fresh out of UC Hastings Law. In fact nearly 30 of his compatriots from the VT Attorney General’s Office came to the Oral Argument to lend him moral support at the hearing. Mr. Daloz and I had a cordial 15 minute conversation before the hearing where expressed his enthusiasm for the depth of historical and legal context of the case. He was excited to receive a copy of Emer de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” which I had purchased for him. He told me that this was the most interesting, fascinating case he has been involved with in his brief legal career. (At the end of Arguments, Todd had expressed a great interest in the Constitutional Convention and I was pleased to give him a copy of “The Summer of 1787” by David O. Stewart.)
Since it is obvious that many of you are unaware, I should tell you that “Oral Argument” before the Supreme Court is actually a “question and answer session”, as the Justices have already thoroughly reviewed the extensive docket and “Argument” is really their chance to resolve any questions that have arisen during their review – so there was none of that “having my head handed to me” stuff. Actually I was pleased that I was able to answer each of the Justices questions and resolve several misunderstandings they had.
One example that comes to mind was the question from Justice Skoglund who had somehow concluded that the Vattelian “natural born Citizen” model required one’s grandparents to be citizens – of course this is simply not true. As all good “Vattelians” know the parents merely need to be citizens at the moment of birth – while I am no professor of law, I believe that this is true even if the parents were to be naturalized the very day of the youth’s birth, as long as it the naturalization was accomplished prior to “the blessed event’ and the “event” occurred within the jurisdiction of the country. Additionally, de Vattel (in chapter 217)states the additional universal exception that those born to citizens “in the armies of the state (soldiers), or in the house of its ministers at a foreign court (diplomats) are reputed to be born in the country” and are therefore considered “natural born Citizens”. (the real reason why true “Vattelians” had no problem with Senator McCain running for President even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a U.S. Protectorate.)
Someone above made a convoluted argument about the exclusivity of the terms “Natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States”. While it is true the all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens of the United States”, it is not true that all “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizens” (only those “citizens of the United States” who were born in this country to two citizen parents are.)
If you folks really want to understand the American citizenship issue, may I recommend two worthwhile resources: 1. “The Development of American Citizenship (1680-1870)” by James H. Kettner, and 2. “Asylum for Mankind – America: 1607 – 1800” by Marilyn C. Baseler. Both will give you a much better understanding of the sense of citizenship that the founders and framers had in mind as they debated and crafted the “Constitution of the United States of America”.
Respectfully,
H. Brooke Paige
A Member of the “Grand Order of the Vattelians”
postscript(s): a – de Vattel’s first name was “Emer” , not “Emmerich”, he was Swiss not German (the confusion was perpetuated from the early English translators, the same ones that were responsible for the translation errors in the 1760/62 versions). By the way for those of you who might actually like to read and appreciate de Vattel, an excellent modern edition was published by Liberty Fund early in 2008 (before the Obama controversy), edited by Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore, it includes a wonderful biography of de Vattel and several of his earlier writings translated to English for the first time.
b – If you want to be “cute” with my name, please at least use “Brooksie” – a variation many adults would use when I was very young (many years ago) and one that would convey a “friendlier” adversarial attitude -Thank You!.
c – Since none of you actually know (or have even met) Mario, I feel compelled to inform you that he is an amazingly informed scholar and just as importantly: a kind, companionate and humorous fellow, a great friend (of course he would have to be all “all that” to put up with all of the “stuff” that Dr. Conspiracy and his rabid gang throw his way.) bp
Cute little Parthian shot, Brooksie. We’ll see how “effective” your defense was.
“The renowned Article II Constitutional Scholar, Mr. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Wow! That was funny! Thanks!
Mario the Putz is a 2nd rate DWI lawyer. His practice consists mostly of slumming. His clients are drunks – some wealthy, some poor. Those of modest means are impecunious by the time their trials are over.
Mario never went near Constitutional law, until Obama was elected twice in a landslide. Mario attempting Constitutional law, is akin to a fish on dry land struggling to breathe.
If Mario was a scholar, he would be a partner in a Midtown firm, not a bottom-of-the-barrel practice of drunks.
Sorry, Angel and Max are up to date on their rabies vaccinations. Rabies among humans in the industrialized world is almost non-existent. You take a crank theory made from whole cloth, literally.
That’s rabid.
Seriously, having one’s Articles II cases or amicus briefs dismissed out of hand, ignored or ridiculed makes one a Constitutional scholar? LOL.
People like Brooke will never admit they are wrong no matter how many courts say so. We have had, what, 10 courts (not counting appeals) saying he is wrong. And of course real scholars, dictionaries, law reviews etc don’t count either next to the opinions of a small town lawyer practicing small time law whose arguments have been already been rejected by our courts.
So Brooke, when the court ridicules your arguments or dismisses them out of hand as not worth their time, please come back here and tell us how you and Mario are smarter than all actual judges or scholars which is what your ilk does after every loss. What else can you say?
If you really wanted to get Mario to come to Vermont all you had to do was tell him you’d found a barber who could do something about that cowlick. An awful tell, the way it stands up when he gets flustered. And he’s just a little bit sensitive about it. Of course, there’s probably nothing short of scalping that would help, but since birthers operate outside the realm of fact, truth and reality anyway– as you have just amply demonstrated– what’s one more little prevarication?
And former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is an actual Constitutional scholar who has clearly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen.
And I doubt she would let little putzo or any of his delusional birther bigot clown friends park her car.
Here’s Mario and Brooke in their car:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sqSnw7OVxMc/T0KlFD6eOmI/AAAAAAAAEbM/VKgfemH1K6I/s1600/clown+car.jpg
Mr. Apuzzo has lost all of his eligibility cases and gave a poor account of himself when he showed up here to defend his position. Whether he impresses you or me is rather beside the point. The issue is whether he impresses a judge — and he hasn’t.
I think pretty much any regular of this blog is well aware of this. I certainly never said you had your head handed to you.
That comes later when the court rejects your appeal, and they will.
Readers here will be familiar with the first book, since I have referred to it often on the blog. It offers no succor to the birthers at all and it mentions Vattel in passing just the one time as I recall — hardly a major influence on the question of citizenship.
But having read Ketter’s book early on, and some other scholarly works on the topic, I must say that you have no excuse to have gotten it so wrong. You might also look at Farrand’s book on the Federal Convention of 1787, in which there is no mention of parentage as a qualification for office, not even as an unadopted suggestion.
Actually Emer and Emerich are both acceptable. At the time Vattel was born, Neuchâtel was under Prussian rule. So one may call him Swiss or Prussian.
To MAJORITY WILL:
First of – I will convey your warmest regards when Mario and I have dinner, in New Jersey on the 15th, he is too busy with his thriving law practice to travel to the Green Mountains for a visit.
As to his credentials, while I will not list them here, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court requested them to assure them that he was experienced in the area of law that he was “informally” advising me on. If you are really interested, most of the Court record is available “on line” and since it is public record, you may take a peek! (You have my permission!) I will tease you by mentioning that in addition to his law degree he has four advanced degrees in law, including international law.
Just because he is willing to participate in your “internet play yard” from time to time does not mean that he has nothing better to do. In fact, when Mario and I first met I ask him why he bothered to “joust” with you folks – he explained that while 95% of the arguments and discussions were sheer dribble, the last 5% was “of interest” and allowed him to hone his arguments and evaluate their effectiveness by how enraged you folks became. He told me that it was important for me to do the same. YES you folks, unknowingly, have provided us a forum to test our positions. You see if all you folks offer is snide remarks and name calling we know we are right on track and if you offer something of value (which does occasionally happen) we can reconsider and modify our position (something that is only occasionally necessary).
Remember that as long as you folks are acting uncivilized and irrational, we know we are the right track!
Respectfully Yours,.
H. Brooke Paige
Lifetime Member of the “Grand Order of the Vattelians”
Do you eat crow cooked or raw?
It’s called snark, honed in the Lower East Side.
“Grand Order of the Mattelians”
FIFY
Dr. Conspiracy,
I did not mention Kettner or Baseler as great support to the “NBC” Vattelian position – what they do effectively present is the many varied requirements of citizenship that existed within the Colonies and early years of statehood during the revolutionary period and under the Articles of Confederation. As I know you are aware, the citizenship/subjecthood often included religious test, financial standing, land ownership and numerous other standards and qualifications. In fact this became a great problem under the Articles of Confederation where in Article IV granted:
“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, …, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states…” Of course the problem was that mere “inhabitants from the “sending state” were to be offered the privileges of citizens in the “receiving state” – so many who could or would not qualify for citizenship in the “receiving state” could establish that inhabitancy in a state with few or no citizenship requirements and having become so established could remove themselves to the more restrictive state and the “receiving state” was (at least theoretically) required to treat them as their own citizens. Of course as time progressed , the states increasingly viewed the “Articles” as the written musings that governed the “toothless league of friends”, the Continental Congress.
It is the wildly varying of citizenship in the early years of our nation that created the problem with creating some sort of national citizenship as part of the Constitution – the States were not about to cede their authority to the National government, however the Framers needed some sort of model for qualifications for the legislative and executive officers. They found in Vattel the elements they needed in his defined terms for the Americans as inhabitants, citizens, natural born citizens and naturalization. The Americans could not (and did not) find the concepts they sought in Blackstone who expressed the terms for the English as royalty, natural born subjects, denizens, denizenation and naturalization by Parliamentary decree. Further it should be noted that after 1740, the King and Parliament no longer viewed the “plantations” as uninhabited territory which they had developed, rather (as Blackstone confirms) the viewed them as conquered lands and as such the conquered were not entitled to the protections afforded English natural born subjects.
The Framers used the Vattelian verbiage in the Constitution and when it came to the Presidential Qualifications they did not suddenly reflect back to the English model they had so recently fought to throw off and think “well natural born subject let us take out that “subject” word and throw “citizen” in its place and ‘presto – change’ we’ll have the Executive of Our Nation our ‘Supreme Magistrate’ wed to his nation by the circumstances of his birthplace alone”. Just maybe they looked to Vattel and the double bond of inheritance to the land and to the parent’s citizenship – I’m just saying…doesn’t this just make a little more sense.
Enough for now!
Sincerely,
H. Brooke Paige
A Proud Member of “The Grand Order of the Vattelians”
No.
It doesn’t.
Especially considering that “Vattelian verbiage” didn’t even exist yet.
MAYORITY WILL
We were thinking Surf and Turf, but I am sure you have a really great recipe “cow bird” that you are just dying to share with us! Send it along and if it is tasty maybe we can send along a doggie bag for you to enjoy.
Your Only Conservative Friend,
H. Brooke Paige
Founding Member of “The Grand Order of the Vattelians”
The sober question then is why do you all keep losing?
Perhaps the 95% of drivel is not where you gentlemen think it is?
And perhaps you should tell that to Galileo, whose *Dialogue* relentlessly used snide remarks to disrespect the “Simplicios” of the world?
They used the term “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably in Massachusetts from 1785 to 1791.
Pathetic birther bigots are gluttons for punishment?
Or perhaps just too wrapped up in hubris, xenophobia and fear mongering to notice the painfully obvious.
Such as wasting the court’s time in VT? Mario has become quite obsessive in this venture as he cannot possibly accept that he is wrong.
This has nothing to do with ‘civility’ which is used an excuse to not present coherent arguments that stand up to legal scrutiny.
The Vattel argument has long been rejected in US v Wong Kim Ark.
Yep… It was in fact used interchangeably in many more instances. The same with natural and native born citizen.
There is no denying that while Vattel may have played some role in international law, even Vattel understood that citizenship is determined by municipal law and each nation has the right to determine who are its native/natural born citizens. The Court in Wong Kim Ark explained it quite clearly when it rejected Vattel.
Fallacy of Pro Hoc
The framers used verbiage that was common in the day. de Vattel (not “Vattel”)also used much of that same verbiage, but using some of the same language, especially common language, does not indicate that one caused the other.
This is one of the main fallacies that the birthers fail to recognize, but also the one that guarantees their failure.
Is it even possible that the babbling Brooke is woefully ignorant of actual U.S. history and law?
Nope, the courts never bought this interpretation.
Always possible and perhaps even quite probable…
The thing about the Massachusetts’ legislatures use of both terms is that they used them in similar legislation with similar language and similar context. They just sometimes used NBC and sometimes used NBS.
But that is beyond guys like Brooks.
It should not come as a surprise that the common law concepts in place before the revolution, continued during and after the revolution. Natural Born was such a concept, as the court in US v Wong Kim Ark so exquisitely outlined.
The Government submitted many of the same arguments proposed by Mario and his ilk.
You mean, like this?
Sicut omnia bona “Vattelians” scire tantum opus esse cives in parentes tempore nativitatis….
Vivamus et justo duo Vattel vinculum respicere et in terram possessionis civitatis parentis – fac me paululum dicere … Hoc non dicitur….
Sentio coactos certiorem qui miro traditur Mario Apuzzo est grammaticus, et sicut potius quaedam, misericors et iocosa collegam et familiarem magna.
I wonder if these cranks are paying a royalty to Donofrio for his two citizen parent requirement fantasy?
He might really need the funds by now.
“In 1998 I realized I was The Paraclete and that my purpose was to prophecy the return of the Messiah.” – Leo Donofrio
Oh boy, another one…
Dave “B”,
Of course it did, Vattel wrote “Law of Nations” in 1758 and firm evidence has the French version in the Americas by 1760. I hope you as not still clinging to this nonsense that the anonymous English translation of 1760 happens to use different words was the only version available in America. Dr. Franklin, Messers. Jefferson, Madison, Mason, et al. all read French and were well aware of the deficiencies of the English version when they were drafting the “Declaration” and had Vattel’s original text (in French) at hand to assure themselves that they had the best (and most accurate) expression of the celebrated Vattel to rely upon. By the time they are in Philadelphia in 1787 for the Constitutional Convention, they were well versed in Vattel’s philosophy as they debated and crafted the Constitution. In Madison’s Debates, the best daily record of the Constitutional Convention – Vattel is mentioned twice as often as Blackstone (and Blackstone is only mentioned in the context of relaying the writings of Lord Coke on the use of ex post facto) – not that that is an important thing in and of itself! What is important is that both the Declaration and the Constitution are filled with ideas taken and applied by the Founders and Framers from Vattel’s Law of Nations and the other Natural Law Philosophers .
Please give the Founders and Framers some credit these were educated and worldly men, men of vision who crafted a remarkable blueprint for democratic republic that has lasted 225 years thus far.
What may be lost on you is that Vattel’s Law of Nations was the most recent expression of Natural Law updating, refining and consolidating the less accessible earlier Natural Law Philosophers: Marcus Cicero (106-43 BC), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Richard Hooker (1554-1600), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Thomas Hobbs (1588-1679), Samuel von Pufendorf (1632 -1694), John Locke (1632-1704), Gottfried Liebniz (1646-1716), Christian Wolff (1632-1754), and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (1694-1748) who Vattel studied with. While the Natural Law Philosophers did not march through the ages in “lock step”, their overarching beliefs always directed to freedom of the individual ultimately under God’s divine guidance. The Founders and Framers were studied in, not only Vattel but as well in Cicero, Aquinas, Grotius, Hobbs Pufendorf, Locke, Wolff and Burlammaqui – they gravitated to Vattel because his writings were more contemporary and conversational and his writings helped give voice to their spirit for independence. It is Cicero who gives us the ideal of the “natural born citizen” as the citizen with undivided loyalty and fidelity to his country – a standard the Framers thought well suited as a qualification for the officeholder of the Presidency and as Commander-in-Chief.
Lastly, it is important to note that Blackstone clearly states that Natural Law supersedes the common and civil law.
Just Waiting for the “Good News” from Montpelier!
Respectfully Yours,
H. Brooke Paige
Proud Member of the “The Grand Order of the Vattelians”
I’m giving them a lot more credit than you are, Brooksie.
What didn’t yet exist in your “Vattelian verbiage” was the term “natural born citizen.”
“GORE FAN” (hopefully not AL GORE) and MAJORITY WILL,
Are you talking about the same Massachusetts Legislature that attempted to bankrupt and destroy the agrarian citizens of the western counties with high, taxes and biased Courts. The Massachusetts Legislature that spawned Shay’s Rebellion and their march to Springfield! Now there is the example they had in mind!
P-L-E-A-S-E !
I Remain,
H. Brooke Paige
Proud Member of “The Grand Order of the Vattelians”
Would that be like Chief Justice Ellsworth states in the Case of Isaac Williams?
“The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships13.html
Oliver Ellsworth was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a member of the Committee of Five that created the first draft of the Constitution.
“NBC”
I do not know Mr. Donofrio, except by reputation, however I believe he was the one that found William Arthur’s naturalization papers in a upstate New York county courthouse, conclusively proving that at the time that “Chester” was born, his father was nota “citizen of the United States”. As I heard a “rapper” so eloquently “sing” the other day “if you got no citizen baby daddy… you got no natural born citizen baby…” I’m just saying!
Always A pleasure,
Brooke
“Proud Member of “the Grand Order of the Vattelians”
Utter fantasy. There is no support what-so-ever anywhere that the founders looked to Vattel for citizenship. You made that up from whole cloth.
Except for the minor detail that the phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in any translation of The Law of Nations prior to the drafting of the Constitution…so it wasn’t exactly “Vattelian verbiage,” was it?
You do know that the Jefferson did just that with the Declaration of Independence. He originally used the word subject, and later replace it with citizen. I guess the idea of just swapping the two words doesn’t seem so hard to grasp does it?
And they did so, by using a phrase commonly understood by all lawyers (of which many of them were), to mean jus soli, and applied to to mean the exact opposite, even though that phrase wouldn’t be applied to jus sanguinis until several years after the ratification of the Constitution, and they didn’t tell anyone or keep a record of doing it.
Oh yeah…perfect sense. Usually if I want to create a standard for everyone to follow by generatoins to come, I do so by keeping it a complete secret and not keeping any record of doing it.
Is that why they called opponents to the new Constitution “Shayites” and those in favor of the Constitution “Washingtonians”?
I guess you would be one of those oppose to the Constitution’s ratification.
BTW, it is the same Massachusetts that led to the proposed amendments to the Construction that led to the Bill of Rights.
I think you mean the Library of Congress
Beside June 27 when else was Vattel cited?
“I did indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow professors of Vattelist’s madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth’s behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the Constitution. The Vattelists, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow in their own vomit and their own mire, rather invent new expedients for their irreligion.”
With apologies to Athanasius (a rather snide Church father), and his Discourse II, Against the Arians.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iii.i.html
And funny, we have Vattel stating that municipal law supercedes ‘Natural Law’ when it comes to citizenship.
But you are still missing the point, the meaning of the term ‘natural born’ had to be found in common law, not Natural Law…
Sigh…
As to the good news from Montpellier… Expect nothing more or less than denied based on your failure to properly serve the President, robbing the court of any jurisdiction.
Bummer…
But you got to argue your case even though it was tried in US v Wong Kim Ark and rejected.
Indeed, I found also one reference to Vattel (twice mentioned)… and one for Blackstone
Yes, twice as much indeed but you should have also presented the actual underlying data.
Shame shame my friend….
Renowned by whom? And yet he has never been published in any on that subject or any subject. Never lectured on the subject. Never participated in a symposium on any subject. Sounds like most Constitutional law scholars I know.
Sure he does. If you count every time he’s made these arguments and been laughed out of court as experience. Oh, according to Martindale Hubbel, Mario’s practice areas are:
Personal Injury
Criminal Law
Municipal Law
Matrimonial Law
Real Estate
General Practice
Funny….nothing about constitutional law on the list.
Vattel returns 15 matches in Supreme Court rulings, Blackstone 308… A whopping 20 times more…
Did you really do your homework?
Searching the U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875, I count 44 Vattel and 91 Blackstone references.
“Dav[ie] B” and “Scotty E” – both Vermonters, I think?
WCAX and WPTZ, really! Their Reporters wouldn’t have a clue what is going on here (your side or mine – if there are even sides!) let alone their viewers who tune in to see the “Happy Time” news while they are waiting to watch reruns of “Happy Days”.
Trust Me! I’m not waiting by the phone for the call from them or the “Mitchell Empire” (Times Argus/Rutland Herald). The only reporter in this state with the intelligence and humor to report on this “adventure” is Sam Hemingway at the “BFP” and I’m sure his editor gave him a “raft of crap” for giving this story a page and a half, in fact almost the entire second front – the Vermont Section with a nice picture of the Justices and the back of my balding head!
If either of you Vermonters are heading through Central Vermont give me a call and we can do lunch – maybe in a couple of weeks I kick in for a beer to celebrate my victory!
With “Freedom and Unity” for All!*
Brooke
“A Proud Vattelian”
* its a Vermont thing!
The same speaker in the same paragraph mentions Vattel twice. Yikes.
Unlikely but whenever I come to Vermont, I gladly pay for your drink and toast on your ‘victory’…
Denied…
“NBC”
You get the Golden Star! If course I knew – what I’m not allowed to have a little fun here?
I hope you did not think I thought I would not be called out! However Vattel was mentioned twice and if you’re honest it is Lord Coke that is being relied upon in the ex post facto discussion – Blackstone isn’t really relied on at all. So however you want to score it: Vattel:2 – Blackstone:1 OR Vattel:1 – Blackstone:0 – Blackstone certainly doesn’t come out looking like the BMOC.
Still Here!, Brooke
I see, this was all just a little fun… Not very convincing but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. There is enough wrong with your arguments, that one need to focus on such a triviality.
As to Blackstone, he was more a reporter of the facts than a philosopher like Vattel, so he indeed would rely more on actual legal arguments.
But even Vattel agreed that it is municipal law and not natural law which defines who are a country’s citizens.
Are you familiar with Thomas P. Stoney’s writings on Citizenship?
Mr Paige, what about Ludlam v Ludlam 🙂
Yes I did, but I’m not sure you did !
Did you actually check the Blackstone references – some refer to the flooding on the Blackstone River in Woonsocket, RI , the Blackstone Valley in MA, in the 1830 Wisconsin sent a member to the House, John W. Blackstone, Sr., the Town of Blackstone in MA and another one in VA. and there was a member of the House in the early 1800’s with the first name Blackstone. Further many of the references were to Tucker’s Commentaries on Blackstone not references to Blackstone directly. If memory serves me correctly there were about 200 “Blackstone” references, however when you subtract all of the above citations out I seem to remember the net count was about 30.
As to the Supreme Court, of course Blackstone trumps Vattel. Vattel was a political philosopher and Blackstone was a chronicler of English Law. The court is engaged in the details of the civil, common and municipal law more often then examining political philosophy. The Founder and Framers were more interested in that political philosophy “stuff”.
I’m Just Saying!,
Brooke
A Proud Vattelian
If only more of your errors were so palatable. I’ve never so much as visited the Green Mountain, but have always held it in the highest regard, and hope to spend some time there before I’m much older. I’d let you buy me a beer, Brooksie, but I fear you might have naught to celebrate but the pleasure of my company.
Exactly and since we know that Vattel stated that it is municipal law and not ‘philosophy’ that determines who are a country’s citizen’s we should not rely on his two parent rule (which was not even a two parent rule) but rather by common law.
Seems you and Justice Horace Gray agree then 🙂
The court in US v Wong Kim Ark explicitly rejected, as had the lower court, the Vattel philosophy, however more logic it may have been, in favor of the common law.
Still better than your 2 to one in Madison’s debates 🙂 But no I had not checked as I did a quick and dirty search for the term.
Rachel Maddow’s interview with Alice Hoagland mother of one of the 9/11 victims on the Shanksville plane (‘Lets roll!’)
The interview starts at about 13:25. She makes a particularly good point starting at 16:55. And conclude the only way to get past it is to use the ‘Serenity Prayer’.
Ben and Jerry’s is better.
BTW one of the Framers (Charles Cotesworth Pinckney) was a student of Justice Blackstone.
Thank you. Denialists are desperate to find anything to bolster their specious arguments.
Mario and his mob never heard of de Vattel until 2008, and suddenly they’re citizenship authorities.
You get the Golden Corral! – FIFY
Just make sure you’re on time for dinner.
Dear Mr Paige,
I’m too tired to reprint the same arguments here over and over again, when our esteemed host can point you to previous threads, but to put it in a nutshell, you (as well as Mr Apuzzo), either out of ignorance or on purpose, misunderstand and misquote what Vattel wrote.
Assuming for a minute that (i) Vattel is relevant to the case (which is highly unlikely) and (ii) that his terminology can be equated with the one employed by your founders (which is highly debatable), there is still no doubt that President Obama would have been deemed a Swiss indigene by Vattel himself under the circumstances because of his family on his mother’s side. In effect, you cannot rely on Vattel to prove Obama’s ineligibility.
Not only is your interpretation of Vattel wrong, but there has been 200+ years of legal scholarship written in French on the topic. I myself am a law graduate from the Sorbonne University in Paris, where his treatise is pretty much taught in year 1 of constitutional law. In 200+ years, not a single scholar has put forward the interpretation(s) of Vattel that you or Mr Apuzzo claim are correct. Not one.
In fact I challenge you — and will pay $100 — if you can find a credible French legal source that supports your interpretation. I rest easy because there are none.
Personally, I find it amazing that someone as ignorant of the French legal system (of the 18th century, to boot!) as you takes it upon himself to pontificate about it.
If you came to the Sorbonne, my old professor Mr de Laubadere (who wrote THE book on the topic) would have first publicly mocked you la Professor Kingsfield from PAPER CHASE, then kicked you out of his class.
http://books.google.fr/books/about/Trait%C3%A9_de_droit_administratif.html?id=alUwAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
(Considering the fact that he passed away in the 80s, that would be quite a feat, in fact, but my point remains.)
My honest advice to you would be to learn French, then enroll at the Sorbonne for a 2-year course (that would be the minimum) on the subject; you may need some US equivalent diploma (more than high school graduation) to enroll; I’m not sure which ones would be acceptable.
Then, after you’ve studied the subject, we can have this discussion again.
Until then, you come across as a sad clown.
“Brooke
A Proud Vattelian”
Proud? How many women have you kidnapped?
122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force….
You want the U.S. government to ban free speech?
How would you be allowed to publish your birther bigot drivel? Military coup?
114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds –” that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.
(Source: Le Droit des Gens. ou Principés de la Loi Naturelle, Appliqués la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains, Emer de Vattel)
Formidable!
Take up high stakes poker. You’ll quickly learn about Donofrio.
WHAT!
Am I to understand that you want Vermont to change the state motto from “Freedom and Unity” to “Ben and Jerry” ! Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield – two ambitious “flatlanders” from NYC who decided to use the Vermont quality reputation that had been carefully fostered by the folks at the Cabot Creamery and later, until the were “called out” by the VT Dept. of AG, were quietly making a lot of the stuff out-of-state without clear disclosure that the stuff was being manufactured by a contractor in Ohio, if memory serves me correctly. Further remembered for railing against Haagen-Dazs for limiting their distribution and making great hay against Pillsbury, the then owner and maker of Haagen-Dazs (you may remember their “what’s the Doughboy afraid of?” campaign) and in the end to sell out to the giant worldwide conglomerate, Unilever!
Is that the folks who’s names you want to replace our 235 year old motto with?
I think we’ll pass on that suggestion!
I Remain,
H. Brooke Paige,
A Proud Vermonter and a Member of “The Grand Order of the Vattelians”.
There was an earlier President whose father was a foreigner and mother was an American. Where was he born?
Nothing in Life is Perfect, not even Emer!
Point Taken, I will readily concede however as to while I am obviously a supporter of “Free Speech” clearly there is a point to be made as to the publication of “scandalous”, immoral and obscene(pornographic) material. I notice that you do not bring up the 100’s of meritorious propositions that Vattel encourages: i.e. public education,encouragement of the arts ,fostering Happiness of the nation , encouraging patriotism (all found in XI), protecting the value of “the coin of the realm ,free trade and protecting domestic industry , encouragement of Agriculture (Chapter VI), peoples right to a constitutional government and the right to amend same (Chapter III), Religious Freedom (Chapter XII) – just a few of his well reasoned propositions – which I hope you will concede were/are “on the money”! I believe Vattel provided the Framers with productive ground upon which to create a truly amazing government – perfect No, but the best mere mortals have ever made!
Sincerely,
H. Brooke Paige
Member of “the Grand Order of the Vattelian”
Of all the birther comments I have ever heard, yours pretty much sums up the sheer arrogance that flows from the “lawyers” within the birther movement. There is no doubt in my mind that you correctly summarized or quoted Putzie because he displayed the same level of arrogance the few times I have seen him on this site. Keep in mind that I have absolutely no problem with any attorney arguing a legal position that he/she believes in passionately. However, to come to the conclusion that the snide remarks from those in this board means that you are on the right track implies not only that you are “on the right track”, but those making the snide remarks know that you are correct in your position and are only using the snide remarks as a way of marginalizing your argument. The clear implication is that those on this forum are dishonest with regard to our arguments, know that the definition of NBC comes from de Vattel’s writings and only argue the contrary position because we are either 1) paid trolls or 2) so loyal to the President that we would undermine the US Constitution to protect him.
Here, sir, is the reality. Some people who post here are supporters of the Presidents while others are not, including myself. Many of the posters are or have been lawyers. I speak only for myself, but I can say with some degree of confidence that many on this board will agree with what I am about to say or have had similar experiences.
Despite decades of experience as an attorney, I had little opportunity to do significant analysis as to Constitutional law. Honestly, in most civil practices it just does not come up that often. Yes, I had studied Constitutional law, and except for needing to know it to pass the various bar exams I took I never really used it on an every day basis-kinda like calculus.
When I first heard about birtherism in general and the “two citizen parent” theory in particular, I was intrigued because it was in an area of the law in which I was not particularly familiar. I did my own research, read every case I could find on the subject. I read the memos, the majority opinions, along with the dissenting opinions. I came to my own conclusion that the birthers were misreading the Minor and Wong Kim Ark decisions.
When I first started engaging birthers on this subject I was as civil as I could be. For advocating the position that I believe in, I was called a troll, a libtard, a communist, an asshole, an idiot, a socialist, a faggot, and the all inclusive term “Obot”.
I have a good education, graduated from a decent law school and if I have one exceptional ability in law, it is the ability to do research and analysis cases. And yet, everyone with a pocket copy of the Constitution thought they knew more law than I did. I found that the vast majority of the lawyers I communicated with agreed with my analysis. So I knew that I was on very safe ground.
Birthers have a remarkable inability to learn from their failures. Despite 200+ years of legal precedent that show that they are wrong and not a single case that has ever supported the two citizen parent theory, the failure to identify a single civil text book that has ever taught that two citizen parents were required to create an NBC, and that no real, constitutional scholar has taken up this theory, Putzie not only continues to advocate this position, but is so arrogant in his conviction that he believes that we all agree with him, and only insult him because we want to further our own agendas.
I am tired of birthers. There is no intellectual honesty and no realistic, rational discussion of the law. I for one, would welcome a debate on the issue. I offered one to Putzie, but he refused to answer the most basic of questions related to his position, and then declared victory. I offered one to Taitz, but I am a nobody. I offered one to Gallups and he refused. I offered one to Coris, got crickets. I offered one to D’Onfrio, and he punked out. I submit to you that any person on this board would win a debate with any birther in less than 10 minutes. The problem is that birthers would never even recognize their defeat, just as you do not seem to understand that there is 200+ years of law that says you are wrong.
I realize that this is simply a long winded (but nearly as long winded as Putize is) of saying that if am uncivil to you or any birther, if I insult you, ridicule your intelligence, your ability to think, your reading comprehension it is not because I secretly agree with you and am protecting the President, it is because of two reasons. The first is that I am simply treating birthers the same way that I was treated when I first engaged them and the second is that you are a moron. If you do not want me to point out that you are a moron, I suggest that you stop being a moron.
Are you trying to do standup? Mario isn’t renowned anywhere other than his fevered imagination. He’s not a constitutional scholar. He’s a DWI lawyer with a light case load.
Not just that but it looks like the Vermont constitution uses the term natural born subject.
“Their Two of a Kind !”
I will assume you question is rhetorical. Yes Chester was born in Vermont and his father did not naturalize until his son was fourteen and living in upstate New York. When he was chosen to run with Garfield as his VP running mate, he was not qualified because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth (the same debility as Obama has today) and began a methodical “search and destroy” to eliminate all evidence of this fact in family and public records. Fortunately for Chester, Arthur Hinman falsely believed that Chester had somehow been born in Ireland, a fatal error that would discredit his subsequent and still incorrect attempts to prove Chester was born in Canada. Chester used Hinman’s “Canadian Distraction” to keep attention away from his fathers untimely naturalization. On his death bed he had his promise to continue the effort to cover his disqualification.
Likewise during the 2008 Election Obama used the rumors of his foreign birth as a distraction to keep attention away from the issue of his father’s citizenship. As to the birth certificate issue, Obama himself tells us the he had found his birth certificate (along with a newspaper article covering his father’s graduation) while living with his grandmother in Hawaii after returning from Indonesia (Dreams from My Father – bottom of p.26, Three Rivers, 2004 edition). Presumably, his grandmother held on to the document and article and, had he wished to do so, Obama could have easily provided it to the public saving all untold intrigue and mischief.
“Barack and Chester, Their Two of a Kind !” (Unqualified)
Sincerely,
H. Brooke Paige
A Member of “The Grand Order of the Vattelians”
mais, bien sur…
So it’s safe to say that birthers might have existed back then if only Chester Arthur had been black…
I’m just curious how they “vetted” Presidents back then and how they checked who their parents were, in a time when birth certificates in state vaults were as uncommon as moon landings.
Bernie Sanders is also from NY. He runs as a Democrat/socialist, and was Burlington mayor for two terms. I have family in Burlington.
How many times have you crossed the line at the Haskell Free Library?
Renowned Constitutional Law Scholars don’t Advertise in the Yellow Pages!
Look ! Mario is my dear friend and loyal ally, He has been an staunch supporter and been of immeasurable assistance in my effort, So Yes he is my Constitutional Law Scholar – if you think otherwise so be it !
Someone pointed out that Mr. Apuzzo didn’t list Constitutional Law Scholar as one of his areas of expertise in his Yellow Pages listing – probably a sound move as I think few seeking that type of assistance would be looking for it in the Phonebook!
Mario Apuzzo is a truly great American, you are just a faceless internet sniper, taking you best shot!
Brooke
i have to agree, as you know i was never a conspiracy theorist before 4/27/11.
judging from the volume of intercourse here at this very forum, it seems to be gaining momentum… very curious indeed.
i remembered when wonky, bulls law dan sfjeff and rahl harangued me for merely suggesting that the supreme court may revisit de vattel as summer reading, now it seems as if everyone’s talking about it. anyone know what happened to john woodman ? did he finally take my advice about the company he keeps ??
at this time, i’d have to say that the constitutional version and the document provenance version of then same controversy are running neck and neck…
The delusion is strong with this one. Show us the evidence from the Constitutional Convention that any provision of the Constitution was based upon Vattel. He was mention once in passing and not with respect to any provision of the Constitution. Show us where the supreme court has said any provision of the Constitution is based upon Vattel. I don’t think it ever has. In the meantime it has said over and over that many provisions of the Constitution were taken from the English common law. Where do you think the 2nd or 8th Amendment or the speech and debate clause come from? Vattel? No, the English bill of rights. What about the 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments? All English law. It is simply a fact that undefined terms in the Constitution are generally English legal terms that generally did not exist outside of English law and have always been interpreted in accordance with English law. Sorry, that is reality. The exaggeration of Vattel’s influence will only be laughed at by our courts like all the Vattel lawsuits have been.
The famous case of Lynch v. Clark clearly speaks to this point:
“The Constitution of the United States, like those of all the original states (and in fact, of all the states now forming the Union, with the exception of Louisiana,) presupposed the existence and authority of the common law. The principles of that law were the basis of our institutions. In adopting the state and national constitutions; those fundamental laws which were to govern their political action and relations in the new circumstances arising from the assumption of sovereignty, both local and national; our ancestors rejected so much of the common law as was then inapplicable to their situation, and prescribed new rules for their regulation and government. But in so doing, they did not reject the body of the common law. They founded their respective state constitutions and the great national compact, upon its existing principles, so far as they were consistent and harmonious with the provisions of those constitutions. A brief reference to the Constitution of the United States will illustrate this idea. It gives the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives, and the sole power of trying an impeachment to the Senate. Impeachment is thus treated as a well known, defined and established proceeding. Yet it was only known to the common law, and could be understood only by reference to the principles of that law. The Congress was authorized to provide for the punishment of felonies committed on the high seas, and for punishing certain other crimes. The common law furnished the only definition of felonies. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, was to be by jury; and the Constitution speaks of treason, bribery, indictment, cases in equity, an uniform system of bankruptcy, attainder, and the writ of habeas corpus; all of which were unknown even by name, to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law. In like manner, the amendments to the Constitution make provisions in reference to the right of petition, search warrants, capital crimes, grand jury, trial by jury, bail, fines, and the rules of the common law. In these instances, no legislative definition or exposition, was apparently deemed necessary by the framers of the Constitution. They are spoken of as substantial things, already existing and established, and which will continue to exist. And the legislation of Congress immediately following its adoption, and in which they proceeded to carry out in detail the new system of government, left most of these things to stand upon the same footing that they previously were, the principles of the unwritten or common law. It has never been deemed necessary for Congress to legislate upon the rules of pleading or evidence, or of the construction of statutes or contracts, or upon any of the multifarious rules and principles of law and equity, which have been daily used and applied in civil cases, in the courts of the United States, from the year 1789 to the present day. So of the rules of evidence, and the proceedings in criminal cases. All these principles, rules and forms of proceeding, have been adopted from the common law, as a matter of course, without doubt or question. The few state trials which we have had under our general government, are full of illustrations of this fact.” Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)
That is correct, the Constitution is full of terms “unknown even by name, to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law.” Of course, one such term was “natural born” which wasn’t in Vattel in 1787 and was unknown to any other system of jurisprudence.
And he is wrong in pretty much everything he says. How many real Constitutional scholars would you like me to cite saying he is wrong? How many courts? Gee, how many courts have already shot down Mario’s gibberish? Seriously, how many courts or actual scholars have to tell you you are wrong before you believe it? Seems that most of the Vattelists have a cult mentality that they will never admit they are wrong no matter what.
That’s a complete and total lie. The records weren’t even touched until after he died but even then records relating to his father were not destroyed. In fact his father’s naturalization papers are apart of the chester a arthur collection that has been on file with the Library of Congress. It was known his father wasn’t naturalized until much later. So again you lied. Parental citizenship does not matter.
He’s your constitutional scholar? You seem quite enamored with him. Too bad he’s lost every case he’s been associated with on the subject and isn’t renowned outside of the birther community.
You are a great comedian. Mario is a stuffed shirt who thinks highly of himself but can’t hold a conversation without coming across as a pompous windbag. No wonder you guys get along
So, Brookie,
If you sup so long and hard at the font of Vattel how do you reconcile your personal and wholly unsupported opinion on NBC status with the directly contradicting statement in 214 where he states that in other countries, naming England (you know then one the US derived its law from), Jus Soli is the rule….?
This is of course fantasy. Hinman actually researched whether the subsequent naturalization of Arthur’s father would make him a natural born citizen. We know this because Hinman published a letter from Senator Bayard in his book indicating that this would not be the case.
I have no idea what deathbed promise you have imagined.
Either Way – I’m OK !
Look, what I think the real answer is – what you think the real answer is means nothing! What I would like to happen at the end of the is that the Vermont Supreme Court (and ultimately SCOTUS) will put this controversy “to bed” once and for all – thus removing the controversy that has cast a pall over the authority of the current officeholder for over four years. I am good with the verdict either way. My fellow Republicans are not pleased that I continue this pursuit as their darlings Rubio, Jindal, Haley and Cruz all would not qualify if the “birth in country to two citizen parents” standard is correct. All of there folks and Mr. Obama are fine folks and all are clearly “citizens of the United States” and once they satisfy the time conditions (which I think they all have) may serve as Senator, Representative or Supreme Court Justice. The one office that they may not hold (if NBC means birth in country to two citizens) is the Office of President and Commander-in-Chief.
Either Way – I’m OK ! Hopefully, You Will at Least Give Me Credit for Getting the Issue Resolved?
H. Brooke Paige
Hear, hear.
No, except for a fringe, it is already well settled, and nothing will ever settle it for them. I don’t see how a state supreme court settles anything any better than a federal circuit court of appeals (in Tisdale). Even if SCOTUS should take the case, the birthers will just say that they are wrong, or afraid of riots in the streets. No matter what happens, nothing will be any more settled than it already is.
It has been put to bed. It was put to bed back in 2008 when he was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was put to bed when congress certified the election. There was never any controversy to begin with. A small vocal minority who use this as an ulterior motive to not accept him as President have been the only one trying to “cast a pall over” his authority and have failed quite miserably.
You sound like so many of the pro se cases I have seen over the years by tax protestors, sovereign citizens and the like. You just want the issue resolved when, of course, it has been resolve for more than a century and you simply refuse to accept it. Now, the question on Cruz has never been decided, so that might be a different story, but if you think the Supreme Court is going to re-visit long settled law on this, you are just deluding yourself. I guess you can dream.
“No Citizen Baby Daddy – No “NBC” Child ?”
So Senator Bayard would not have agreed with you the Mr. Obama was qualified to be POTUS ?
Brooke
It was resolved in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898. That’s why the Supremes will not humor your mob.
IANAL, but I have a paralegal cert. from Old Dominion University, in Norfolk.
“the controversy that has cast a pall over the authority”
The only pall here is cast by a laughable group of delusional birther bigots who constantly and blatantly lie about U.S. history and the law and chatter on endlessly with the mistaken notion that repeating a lie ad nauseam magically makes it true. This group of arrogant clowns feebly attempt to further a political smear campaign and, for some, a race based agenda of social purity, xenophobia and fear mongering.
Thank you.
Wholly incorrect. But hey do you think Tom Vilsack current Secretary of Agriculture is eligible for the Presidency?
Bayard said that the naturalization of a father after the birth of a foreign-born child (remember that in Hinman’s eyes Arthur was foreign-born) makes the child a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
Obama was neither foreign born, nor did his father ever become a naturalized US citizen. Completely different situation.
The Bayard letter in Hinman’s book about Arthur proves beyond any doubt that Hinman was aware of the scenario of a foreign-born child becoming a citizen upon the naturalization of his father, and it is strong evidence that Hinman knew Arthur’s father naturalized after the President’s birth. (If he didn’t, why put the letter denying the scenario?) Whether or not Hinman knew specifically about Arthur’s father, it cannot be said that he was so distracted by the false “born in Canada” rumor that it kept him from considering that Arthur’s father could have naturalized after the President’s birth.
That’s right. From their first Constitution in 1777 through it’s revisions in 1786 and 1793 through the amended version in 2010.
If Brooks Paige was born in Vermont – he is a natural born subject of the state. LOL
“Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all rights of a natural born subject of this State, except those privileges, the right to which is herein elsewhere determined, and except also that such person shall not be capable of being elected Treasurer, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence, nor be eligible to the office of Governor or Lieutenant-Governor until the person shall have resided in this State as required by section 23 of this Constitution.”
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm
Looks like his next cause after this one fails is to try and get the Vermont legislature to amend the constitution.
“It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
Sec. 2. The word ” citizen,” as used in this act, shall be construed to mean a person born within this, or some one of the United States, or naturalized agreeably to the Acts of Congress, or a person who has become a freeman of this State, by virtue of the laws in force before June 26th, 1828. ,
Acts and resolves passed by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont pg. 31 (1864)
I MADE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE END – and then!
Well I made it al the way to the end thinking here is a fair minded person – but in the end you proved me wrong. Just Because I do not agree with you – I am a moron ! Now that is civility! I do not know you AND you do not know me, unlike you I refrain from being rude of nasty – anonymously! You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. The difference is that I have submitted my understanding of the facts to folks who have the responsibility and authority to decide what the law and the Constitution actually say! It appears that you are satisfied to submit your understanding of the facts for validation by internet affiliates with similar views – I dare say that my approach is more reasoned and conclusive (and a whole lot more expensive) course to pursue!
I am sorry that you feel that “birthers” electronically mugged you. First I am not a “birther” as I do not support the theory the Mr. Obama not born in Hawaii. Secondly, the many of the “birthers” have created a cottage industry for them selves soliciting donations to go flying around the country filing endless law suits that do little beyond supporting their “donation” scheme.
Once again, I am sorry that you have been enraged by others that you falsely consider “in my camp”. I have done what I thought was right and prudent to resolve what I view as an active controversy, I have taken my controversy to those I thought best able and authorized to decide the issue with finality and I will be satisfied with their decision and with the fact that I have done all that I could to find the truth.
I Remain – Sincerely Yours,
H. Brooke Paige
You are not being honest.
The ‘issue’ has been settled. Many times. What you are doing is perpetuating the matter after it has been settled. You are in a State court, any decision there can be appealed to higher court, especially since if you ‘win’ your decision will be at odds with decisions in other States, so it could go SCOTUS.
But it has already been settled by SCOTUS, a hundred years ago. WKA settled it ‘once and for all’ (where “all” is defined as everyone except cranks like you, who like a dog will not let go of the bone).
For a person born on U.S. soil under the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system, the parents’ citizenship status is totally irrelevant – that person is a natural born citizen.
Obama is just such a person born on U.S. soil under the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system and his parents’ citizenship status is totally irrelevant – he is a natural born citizen.
Period.
Why are you addressing me?
I didn׳t write the post. I did agree with most of it, however.
Will you be taking this next to the US Supreme Court?
Are you a “natural born subject” of Vermont?
You are, without a doubt, a birther. If you don’t understand why, that’s not at all surprising.
“and I will be satisfied with their decision”
Now you’re a comedian? HAH! Come back here and prove it. That should be entertaining.
Determination of what constitutes a “scholar” is a little more objective than that. I could proclaim my cat Fred my scholar on thermodynamics. While I might hold that conviction very deeply, to the reality based world, I’m just being a nutter.
Martindale Hubbell isn’t “the Yellow Pages” or a phonebook. It is a professional directory those in the legal profession, used by those in the legal profession. But you are correct on one point. Those looking for an attorney on issues of Constitutional Law probably wouldn’t look to the yellow pages, because most attorneys of that calibur won’t even have a listing. You will find many of those attorneys sitting on the faculty of best law schools in the country…and if they are a practicing attorney with a firm, you better believe it would list Con law in their Martindale description. And just by way of comparsion, the practice areas listed in Martindale Hubbell for my law school ConLaw Prof:
•Consumer Class Actions
•Civil Rights
•Civil Liberties
•Constitutional Law
Oh and he has been published 15 time on the subject of Constitutional law in various law journals since graduating law school (an average of once every other year). In contrast in virtually the same time period (Mario graduated law school 3 years after my ConLaw prof.), Mario has NEVER published anything in any law journal. Some scholar.
Mario is a hack and represents the worst side of the legal profession. I can excuse Orly for being an idiot who got her law degree from a crackerjacks box. Mario at least went to a middling law school (Temple – currently upper 2nd tier). Unless he has completely self deluded himself, there is no way he can believe the garbage he spews. And to top it all off, he tries to pass of arrogance as intelligence. It may fool those who do not know better, and are looking to confirm their biases, but for those of us who actually have studied the law, he’s just a pompus con man peddling his wares to an army of angry rubes.
The issue has long since been resolved in US v Wong Kim Ark, where the Government raised many of your arguments and had them rejected in favor of the jus soli interpretation.
So simple
No, you are a moron brecause you purport to understand and speak with authority about a legal treatise written a couple of centuries ago in a foreign language and legal system very diffrerent from yours.
That the absurdity of the situation doesn’t strike you is one more hint that you are deranged, delusional.
I note with interest that the only person to whom you have not responded is myself, the only French lawyer from the Sorbonne here who is telling yoiu (with some authority) that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If you want to argue about the US consitution, Wong Kim Ark, Blackstone, et al, go ahead, you won’t hear a pip from me because I wasn’t schooled in such matters. But stop talking about Vattel.
Hear! Hear! Brilliant!
If that is the case why did you and Mr. Apuzzo try so hard to have Mr. Apuzzo gain admission to practice in Vermont? Of course, you couldn’t find a single attorney who would sign off to sponsor the “renowned Article II Constitutional scholar” to be admitted. You then tried to do an end run have have Judge Bent admit Apuzzo to which the judge replied “We have procedures for this. Follow them.”
You are a birther. Birthers believe that President Obama is not eligible for his office. Some believe he was not born in the US, others have bought into the “two citizen parent” fallacy. All are birthers.
As others have pointed out, even the current Constitution of the State of Vermont uses the term “natural born subject” in its section on citizenship. You should also look to the Vermont Statutes online:
“ 271. Common law adopted
So much of the common law of England as is applicable to the local situation and circumstances and is not repugnant to the constitution or laws shall be laws in this state and courts shall take notice thereof and govern themselves accordingly.”
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=01&Chapter=005&Section=00271
If you were honest in your pursuit, you would look to the eligibility cases that have been decided and the fact that the SCOTUS has refused cert in over 20 birther cases.
Quick question, just what source considers Mr. Apuzzo a renowned scholar?
You are not a moron because you disagree with me, you are a moron for the positions that you advocate when the law has been settled for a long time. I can go chapter and verse on why your position is contrary to every known precedent, but you would not accept it.
You are a moron because you would rather believe Putzie than the Sandra Day O’Connor on an issue of Constitutional law. You are a moron because you advocate mutually exclusive positions.
You are a moron because you actually believe that you have the right to tear up the Constitution in an effort to “save” it.
And make no mistake, you ARE a birther, which relates to anyone who believes that the President is not constitutionally eligible to be President. You are just a de Vattelist birther. So you are a moron for not even knowing that you are a birther.
Lastly, you are a moron because you did not even understand the point of my post.
I am a very reasonable person, just do not expect me to treat you with civility. If we were in a Courtroom, I would act with the appropriate decorum. Here, I am under no requirement to treat you with civility or any measure of respect, for I have none.
You obviously have not read the US v Wong Kim Ark ruling nor the dissenting opinion or the submissions by the government that ask the Court to overrule the lower court’s decision that found WKA to be natural born.
The 14th Amendment merely restates what had been common practice in our Nation: citizenship comes from birth on soil or through naturalization. The former was well known as jus soli.
In US v WKA, the Court showed in clear detail how there are but two kinds of citizens of the United States: Born or by statute. They observed how the term natural born remained undefined in the Constitution and concluded that its meaning had to be found in Common Law. By examining the Common Law, before, during and after the revolution the court found that natural born means: born on soil, under jurisdiction.
Which is why the dissenting Judge was outraged that now Wong Kim Ark could become a president and children born abroad to US parents could not.
They all understood the simple findings by the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark, and yet some have still not clearly understood its meaning, however as far as the Courts are concerned, this issue has since long been laid to rest.
There is just not much support for a Vattelite interpretation which the Judge in the lower court of Wong Kim Ark, considered to be perhaps more logical. But he found himself to be bound by legal precedent and common law.
Sorry my friend, and if you really believe that the Supreme Court in VT is going to rule on this, then you may be very disappointed as it will most likely reject your appeal on much simpler grounds.
His own blog?..?
Excellent points…
But then again, this just reiterates the findings by the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark. We should not be too surprised..
The term natural-born subject was often used as well to distinguish from aliens, used interchangeably with natural-born citizen or even native born.
All clearly point to a jus soli and not a Vattellite foundation of our citizenship, just as Vattel had accepted: Every nation has the right to decide for itself who are its citizens.
This is not rocket science.
On that you are correct….except that one of us is actually basing what we believe on what the courts have clearly stated.
I can give you a 99% guarentee that the SCOTUS will NEVER take up a birther case. The Court only takes those cases it feels there is some question of unsettled law, a conflict in the opinions in the Circuits, or a matter they feel may merit a change in the law. The fact that a person born on US soil, whose parents are not diplomats, is a natural born citizen, irrepsective of the citizenship or immigration status of their parents, is universally accepted. Every court that has looked at Mario’s argument has flatly rejected, so there is no split in the circuits. It is an entirely uncontroversial matter of law. SCOTUS is not going to waste its time on crank legal theories, not even to make a point.
The controversy exists only in your mind. Just because there are flat earthers out there doesn’t mean there is an actual controversy over the shape of the earth, nor the fact that there are moon landing denies make a debate of the reality of the moon landing a legitimate question to resolve. The issue was resolved long before you or I were even born.
You get no credit for beating a dead horse that legal community (and pretty much everyone else before 2008) has considered a matter of settled law since the late 19th century.
What are the four advanced degrees you are talking about? The following is from Mr. Apuzzo’s law firm’s website. He only lists his undergrad, JD and one degree for “Advanced International Legal Studies”. What are the other three and why doesn’t he include them in his resume on his website?
“Mario Apuzzo obtained his undergraduate degree in Political Science from Wilkes University, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He then attended Temple University School of Law, in Philadelphia, where he graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree in 1982. He continued his post-graduate legal studies at the University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California, at its McGeorge School of Law, in Salzburg, Austria, which also included course work in Milan, Italy, receiving a Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies in 1983. He has studied comparative international law at Temple University, in Rome, and has also pursued a second law degree in the European civil law system at the University of Naples.”
http://www.apuzzolawyer.com/About_Us.html
Exactly. What a burden his confirmation bias must be…
Real legal scholars, the ones that teach and litigate constitutional law generally have no advanced law degrees. People who get additional degrees usually are ones who didn’t do well enough in law school to get a good job. Take a look at our supreme court justices and other federal judges. Almost all went from their JD to a prestigious law firm or clerkship. Advanced law degrees do not impress anyone in law as top law students never get them (the exception being tax LLMs which many top firms encourage their tax associates to pursue).
Yeah, it reminds me of something Galileo did. In Pisa.
And unlike Our Mr. Brooksie, he actually got elected to the U.S. Senate.
This underscores my problems with people like Mr. Paige. He may see himself as an honest guy looking for an answer. We see him as somebody who is repeating lies either because he has not read what he is writing about, can’t understand it or is simply dishonest. As a lawyer, there is nothing more troubling that people misrepresenting the law. It is offensive to me to have people claim a case says somehting it doesn’t or says the opposite of what it actually says. Now, I can normally be lenient to amateurs who may be ignorant of what they say. But for the Vattelists, there is no such excuse as the things Paige says have been debunked in no uncertain terms on pretty much every internet site they have been discussed. Brooke, why don’t you post your brief here. If you got it from where I think you did, it is certainly full of plain misstatements of fact, i.e., lies. To state any court said a natural born citizen needs citizen parents is simply false as a matter of fact. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of being able to read plain English. There is no excuse for such behavior and it offends us people who do this for a living.
Ankeny is not dicta, but holding, and you should be embarrassed to say otherwise if you don’t understand what the term means. Did you say this is court? You should hope the judges don’t sanction you for such a misstatement. And, of course, no court has ever said “Citizens of the United States” and “natural born Citizens” are two distinct tupes of citizenship. Even Minor says “natural born citizens” are also “citizens.” Have you ever read any of these cases?
Again, you are either lying, just can’t read English very well or are just dishonest. I am not being uncivil. There is no other explanation why someone would so misrepresent what a court has siad. In the reality based, English-speaking, world, the Supreme Court first addressed the meaning of “natural born citizen” and then said the 14th Amendment restated the same rule only making it clear it was colorblind. Hence the Court said “natural born citizen” and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment meant the same thing. This is not a matter of opinion, that is what the court said. To say otherwise is lying. Is that what you said to the Vermont Court, or did you lie to them as well?
I suggest you take notice that judges in these birther and Vattelists suits are losing their patience. Have you seen the sanctions Donofrio, Taitz and Strunk have been hit with? You should hope your judges are in a good mood as misrepresenting law is not funny to them.
You owe Angel an apology.
Amateurs don’t realize, and disingenuous lawyers ignore, that there is pretty much no valid new interpretation of long-standing law. Somewhere along the line someone has said “That law really means this!” and put it to a judge or justice, who either found that it does or doesn’t. And often the same theory surfaces again and again, but is rejected by consensus.
After a while it just is, as you say, fact. Period.
These principles and codes have been hammered out brutally in court, over decades, whole legal and/or political careers, and sometimes over centuries. That is why the people who count have never embraced the Vattelists’ ideas; the matter has been decided utterly, and any self-respecting well-informed person should be embarrassed to publicly assert them.
A “Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies” isn’t a degree. “Diplomas” and “Certificates” are nothing more than a participation ribbon for taking a few extra classes in a particular discipline, either as a part of your degree program, or completely outside a degree. It’s not like he went out and earned an LLM or a JSD. As for his “studi[ing] comparative international law at Temple University, in Rome,” again, big f’en deal. Most law schools have a summer abroad program between the first and second year. You live overseas, take a couple of classes while being a tourist. It doesn’t somehow make you an instant expert on international law any more than taking any other class in law school. And “pursued a second law degree in the European civil law system at the University of Naples.” Notice no mentioning completing a degree. Again, big deal, so he took a couple of classes.
This little blurb actually give quite a bit of insight on our friend Mario…now my attempt at some amateur psychoanalysis…Mario went to a hole in the wall undergrad university. Judging by the fact that Mario doesn’t mention graduating with any honors (and let’s face it, it’s not like Mario has ever displayed any modesty) either here or on his Martindale Hubbell bio, it’s probably safe to assume he didn’t graduate with any (he does list “Listed in Who’s Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges, 1978-1979. Named: Outstanding Senior Scholar Athlete, Wilkes College, 1978-1979” so we can assume he wasn’t a total slouch). Better than average grades undergrad gets him into a middle of the road law school. Again, nothing special in law school. No honors, no journal, nothing published. But like most self deluded law students, Mario fancies himself something special with a great career ahead of him. He takes his summer abroad, loads up on some international law classes, and his average grades doesn’t land him a job in big law, he takes a few more courses hoping to pad his resume. Nothing happens, and Mario continues his trek through mediocrity, making Mario more and more bitter as he dreams of doing international work in a large NYC dashed. So now DUI/divorce/family law/ambulance chaser/petty criminal defense lawyer ekes out a life doing rather mundane work for people he considers beneath him, for some reason being deprived of his rightful place of doing great things at a big firm.
Then come the birthers. Not being clever enough to think up his own novel theories, he jumps on the theories of someone who spent a lager part of his professional career in the casino than in a court room. Now Mario has an audience who aren’t educated enough to understand that for all his arrogance, and talking down to people, he is full of absolute BS. He can now pretend to be doing great things, even though the legal community thinks he’s a complete joke. He has hoards of rabid fans, who accept is words as gospel, consider him a great scholarly mind, and give him the respect that he has been unjustly denied all these years. It doesn’t matter that the actual legal community thinks he’s a joke. When he’s confronted by someone who has studied the law, and points out his folly, he just throws downs some condescending statements, makes an irrelevant comment about how this judge’s opinion stating that his arguments are wholly frivolous and without any legal merit doesn’t count because the judge didn’t go point, by point, by point of his frivolous argument, at least not to his satisfaction….and really, until the Supreme Court actually grants him cert (knowing full well it will NEVER happen), his arguments are still valid (despite the fact that they have been shot down in every court they were presented. Now Mario declares victory, call everyone names, acts all superior, and tells the birthers how he stuck it to those Obots, who all really know, deep in their hearts, that despite never winning a case based on his arguments, he really is right.
Yes, but renowned Constitutional Lawyers have a track record of litigating Constitutional controversies, have taught Constitutional Law as prestigious law schools, and have written peer-reviewed papers on the Constitution.
How many Constitutional issues has Mario litigated over the course of his career? Has he ever taught Constitutional Law? Has he ever published anything, other than the ramblings on his blog?
Calling Mario Apuzzo a Constitutional Law scholar is akin to calling Mike Zullo a detective.
Well done.
JoZeppy: Now Mario has an audience who aren’t educated enough to understand that for all his arrogance, and talking down to people, he is full of aboslute BS.
how absolutely true – and no respected attorney has represented the birthers – where are ted olson, joe digenova, victoria toensing, ben ginsberg, etc all respected attorneys on the right?
Mario is an American citizen because he had the good fortune to be born on US soil. It’s called the 14th Amendment. Look into it.
I don’t know if you could call a rabble rouser “truly great.”
Since you asked, here is my self-portrait: http://ubereye.deviantart.com/
The shot of Jeanne is great, isn’t it?
It’s called wit, honed in the Lower East Side and the Borscht Belt. You and Mario help keep me in practice. Thanks!
I too thought Brooke calling Mario a “renowned Article II Constitutional Scholar” is pretty silly since his Article II cases or amicus briefs have been dismissed out of hand and he has no credentials that anyone would normally ascribe to a Constituional scholar. But I think we should focus on attacking Mario’s arguments, not Mario’s practice or education. I have interacted with him many times and he is not stupid. I am offended by what I believe are his dumb, if not dishonest, legal arguments and what I believe are his mischaracterizations of law. I think one can find our debates online if they want. But I, at least, try to attack his arguments and not him personally, though such is not easy based upon his arguments. It is not easy to maintain objectivity and composure when someone argues that 2 plus 2 is 5 which is pretty much what he has argued at times. The bottom line is we should try to limit our citicism to his arguments, not his law practice or education, no matter how much he incites us with his dumb arguments nor how many people like Paige just complicate this by exaggerating Mario’s Constitutional qualifications.
As an aside, one can make fun of Temple law as a second tier school. That is true. However, I went there too as I partied way too hard as an undergraduate to get into any Ivy League school. However, at Temple, I was able to get a pretigious clerkship and a job in a wall street firm which means it is good enough for people who do well there.
I went to Temple for both intra-ocular implants. The surgery was done by a professor, and he did a superb job on both eyes. At my request, he gave me monovision, and I only use reading glasses when editing photographs. I don’t need them to read print.
I had a life threatening asthma episode, and was given intravenous Dexamethasone which triggered premature cataracts. I also went there for abdominal surgery, done by another professor. I recovered so quickly, I rode my motorcycle to the follow-up visit at Broad and Ontario.
Temple is literally down the road from me in Chinatown.
Do they have a plaque commemorating Meretricious Mario’s attendance there?
A doormat at the law school entrance.
This is the second time recently that I have seen the “You disagree with me so you call me a moron” strawman popup recently. The first was trying to rehabilitate GWB by claiming that everyone calling him unintelligent was just disagreeing with his policies.
If we are watching the NBA playoffs and talking about who is going to win the NBA Championship and you say Miami while I think it is New York, I am not going to think you are a moron. But if you say insist it will be Orlando, who did not make the playoffs, then I will tell you that you are an idiot.
Breaking News: “TEMPLE RENAMES LAW SCHOOL after renowned grduate!”
When my litigation is successfully concluded, I will see if Bill Cosby (another Temple graduate) will help me to have them name their Law School after him: The Mario Apuzzo School of Law, sounds pretty good to me!
I’m just saying !
Affectionately,
H. Brooke Paige
Member of “The Grand Order of the Vattelians” AND
Charter Member of “Societa del grande Apuzzo””
We have all, including my self, “crossed swords” with Mario. My conclusion is that it’s a waste of time at this point. Same story every time. Mario will continue to make his bogus arguments, drop quotes out of context, make ridiculous arguments (my personal favorite was that an opinion calling his theories legal frivolous doesn’t disprove his theories, since the judge didn’t go point by point saying why his theory was wrong), hurl insults when faced with the facts, declare victory, and run away. There are only so many times you can run through this futile exercise. Time to just call it like it is. Mario represents the sleazy underbelly of the legal profession.
I agree. Mario is not dumb, evidenced by the fact that he did go to a decent law school (sure, it’s not Harvard or Yale, but it’s not like he got his JD from a correspondence school or even the Cooley School of Law). This, in my book, makes Mario all the more disgusting. I have no doubt that Mario knows his arguments are B.S. No one who graduated from any ABA-accredited law school could look at the case law, and come to the conclusions he does.
Depends on the argument you’re having. If some raises the 2 parent “theory” yes, I will point out the error or their ways. If someone is claiming Mario is an authority on Constitutional law, there really is no way to attack that claim without going to the qualifications of Mario, which to a great extent, are the product of his education and practice.
I know several people that went to lower ranked schools than Temple and did very well. Top of the class at most tier 1 and 2 schools will usually do pretty well (a little tougher in the current economy). Someone at the bottom half of their class in Georgetown is probably not going to land in big law, and will have trouble landing a job. Unless your diploma says Yale, Harvard or Standford, bottom of your class isn’t going anywhere (and actually, I don’t think any of those schools even publish ranks, or even grades, so there is no “bottom.”). However, in the case of our friend from NJ, implications are that he wasn’t top of his class, so goes back to his qualifications as a “constitutional law scholar.”
Just my 2 bits. 🙂
Perhaps a bathroom stall in the library dedicated to his honour?
Excellent point MattR.
I went to school in the Philadelphia area as well and my son is a Temple undergrad. Good school. Temple is a fine law school but when discussing school and relating it to credibility always remember that Corsi has some kind of graduate degree from Harvard. Enough said.
You can tell a Harvard grad, but you can’t tell him much.
I’m sure you will have no problem doing that just as soon as your litigation is successfully concluded.
Only if it’s out of order.
I finally get it: this is performance art. It’s all an act. No one can write this in seriousness.
Similarly to the idea of know one should care what law school you came from so long as you’re competent…
When I was a junior Officer in the army, there was always a rivalry between those of us who were commissioned from the ranks, and the “Ring Knockers” (West Point grads). My DCO often told us. “No one is going to care if you’re a West Point Grad 10 years into your career, or 10 seconds into battle.”
So how’s that been working out with those “folks who have the responsibility and authority to decide”, Brooksie? Any luck yet? You’re 0 for how many?
Sounds like a losing proposition… Just like our lawyer friend…
Why? I’m not trying to take away her bone, just describing the behavior of some dogs. Can you deny that some dogs do indeed feel overprotective of their bones?
I’m sure Angel is a great dog. Hell, some of my best friends have been dogs. But I know their habits. You know they talk about you behind your back, don’t you?
Isn’t the volleyball gym named the ‘Bill Cosby Gym’? It should be. Or maybe the Philosophy building.
Angel and Max conspire.
You haven’t done your homework on Bill Cosby. He’s a staunch supporter of the president, so just how do you figure he would help someone who’s made it his life work to take the president down with universally-rejected legal arguments as well as twisted facts and outright falsehoods?
As an aside, I don’t think the title “The Law of Nations” is a particularly good translation of “Le Droit des gens : Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués la conduite et aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains.” (Usually translated as “the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns” which is fine)
In his title, Vattel focuses on People, not Nations (if he had wanted to say so, he would have used either the French words “Nations” or “Peuples,” but he didn’t; instead, he used “Gens” which definitely means people with a small p, you and I, not “peoples” if you will, national aggregates).
IMHO one might even construe his title as meaning both The Law of People(s) and The Rights of the People.
This is the sort of things where reasonable folks may agree to disagree, and write pages of reasoned arguments pro and con, but this is just the point out that the English translation issues with Vattel begin on Page 1.
It takes an arrogant and ignorant mind indeed to make bold pronuncements on Vattel’s meaning based on the English translation.
WKA was declared a citizen. His parents were permanent residents at his birth. Obama cannot be a citizen based on WKA. He cannot be a natural born citizen.
We know the truth.
Wong Kim Ark made two different classes of citizenship. The native born citizen and the natural born citizen.
Sadly, the perpetual inhabitant does not meet the WKA definition. His father’s INS records state he was not a permanent resident. Obama’s father was never an immigrant.
Can anyone can show us Obama could be President under the 1787 Constitution.
Could Obama compose a letter to Washington or Madison requesting changes to the draft of the constitution?
Remember Congress has the power to naturalize. Congress has no power to make a natural born citizen.
Congress can make no law that violates the law of nations. Yes my friends..the law of nations is law in the US.
Obama violates it daily being an illegal president.
Make your insults about us on this Forum, it only strengthens our resolve.
It is a truth Obama is not a citizen. This forum and the majority its readers sole purpose in life seems to be suppressing the truth about Obama.
Obama is Kenyan.
Let’s be clear here: I am French. I don’t have a dog in your fight. I could care less about Obama’s (in)egilibility. And frankly, I don’t care for his foreign policy.
My sole motivation in coming here and arguing here was to oppose the gross misuse of Vattel’s words by the American birthers, same as any American with an interest in Thomas Jefferson would presumably oppose the rantings of lunatic Frenchmen trying to twist Jefferson’s words to justify tyranny.
That being stated, to this outside observer, you come across as wrong on virtually every legal issue and in total denial about facts.
Of Course I was aware the Mr. Cosby is a Obama supporter. I hope you didn’t think I was serious – you folks have no sense of humor ! Give me a break!
Brooke
Truth be told 4 motions denied 7 approved, however the only ruling that counts is the final one!
Brooke
The legal argument made by the court does not rely on Wong’s parents being permanent residents. Therefore this fact is incidental and not a requirement for the application of the decision to Obama, no more than the fact that they were Chinese.
This is essentially the mistake made by Mr. Paige when he chastises the Indiana Court for relying on Wong, and those courts that rely on Indiana. While Wong’s parents were permanent US residents (only one of Obama’s parents was a permanent resident) and while the Wong decision did not name him a “natural born citizen” (although this language was used in the lower courts), it is the essential argument, the chain of logic, that appears in the Wong decision which makes it applicable to non-permanent alien residents and makes Wong a natural born citizen. The Government defendants in Wong said quite plainly that THEY understood that if Wong won his case, that he could run for President.
See also ratio decidendi. This is not something I knew going in because I’m not a lawyer, but there is no excuse for someone commenting on court decisions on the Internet not to learn it.
I assumed from your name you were a gal, however your entry seems to be telling me you are the fellow (since Jeanne is a greater stretch) So that being said –
Whether you are the Hot Babe or the Smoking Beefcake – Looking Good!
Thanks for Sharing!
Brooke
Misha is Russian for Michael – I was named after my grandfather. That’s me on the right, behind the camera.
You should declare yourself a sovereign citizen, and refuse to pay taxes.
Is that you Garret? You are wrong. WKA did distinguish two categories of citizenship–Citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. Citizens at birth are native and natural born citizens. The Supreme Court has consistently used NBC and Native born citizens interchangeably. See Minor, Luria v. US and Baumgarten v. US.
And no, the Law of Nations, as a book or treatise is not the a law of the United States.
You know nothing.
Bernie Sanders? No, he lost his first race for the House narrowly in 1988, 41-38 in a 3-way race and won handily on his second try in 1990. He held the seat with huge margins, except for a fairly close race in 1994, until he ran for Senate in 2006, which he won by a 2-1 margin.
You need to accept the fact that Bernie is a beloved figure in Vermont (and you are not). I live just over the line in NY and go to Vermont often and know many people there. Even many self-described conservatives in Vermont like and respect Bernie. He will be Senator as long as he wants, barring illness or death.
Thank you. Sanders runs as a democrat-socialist.
Yes, Wong Kim Ark does differentiate citizenship into two categories, natural born and natutralized. Show us the exact passage where it distinguishes between native born and natural born.
You can’t. You keep losing, yet proclaiming your side is right. It would be like the Charlotte Hornets proclaiming they’re the best team in the NBA — with the difference being that the Hornets, at least, won 21 times.
The truth is, your arguments are an attempt to legitimize you true opinion, which you once stated as:
You said that here (until the Doc remembered you were already banned as Dancing Rabbit and Dragging Canoe) and you said that as the zotted Bushpilot1 on Free Republic. Do you wish to repent from your core belief? If not, any future argument is nothing more than an exercise in justifying your childish little racist hate.
Under the 1787 constitution no black man could be president. Is this the angle of troll that you really want to take Scotty?
Yeah, and motions don’t count, either. You’ve appealed your case…why?
Wouldn’t Mishka be the female equivalent for Michelle?
No he is not. He’s American born and raised. I know you can’t stand that fact Garrett so you go about trying to spread nonsense. Your sole purpose seems to be trying to delegitimize the president because of his melanin content. There is nothing else that could be driving you to believe such irrational things
But he got elected, didn’t he, with 207,848 votes. The guy that cleaned your plow in the primary got 72,898 votes. And in the primary elections, Senator Sanders got more votes in each of seven counties than you got in the entire state. That must sting a little, with all that “poop” you’re flinging.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !
No offense was intended! When my mom named me “Brooke”, in the early 50’s, it was primarily a guy’s name. It was only in the ’80’s that Brooke Shields ruined for the guys.
In any case keep pumping the iron, I wish I was in half the shape! Of course that would be an amazing feat for a 60 year old recovering congestive heart failure survivor!
All the Best, Brooke
MONEY TALKS!
John MacGovern spent $25,000 collected from his rich college buddies at Dartmouth compared to the $4.400 I spent out of my own pocket, you see I felt it was unfair to solicited contributions for a suicide run! IN the general election, “Johnnie Mac” hit his buddies up for another $125,000 and (like the faux-conservative he is) had no problem spending nearly $150,000. He is now running a “Beg-a-thon” to cover-up the short fall !
I had announced weeks before Johnnie, and once he was in I figured if I continued on at least the Republicans would get some coverage before the general. We had several debates on “Mark Johnson” and Vermont Public Radio as well a several one on ones at county party meetings. I had a great time working the county fairs and participating in local fairs and parades. When you know you don’t have a shot, it becomes a very enjoyable and cathartic experience.
Not the it matters, but with my limited resources, I concentrated by efforts in central Vermont where live and am known – I garnered over 50% of the Republican vote where my message was heard.
Bernie is a loud talker, crying and screaming about how “we need to soak the millionaires and billionaires” when he and his wife earn over $400,000 a year, however they are either big spenders or keeping the “big bucks” in a shoebox, to keep the figures they report to the Federal Election Commission low. (He and Jane are no big charity donors – Bernie once told reporters, “I don’t donate a lot – that’s stuff the government handles”)
Your right Bernie will be a blight on Vermont for a while longer, however this past election cycle, while he was out campaigning they had to keep reminding him that he was already running as he kept starting his stump speech with “I think I might announce in the fall that I’ll run again !” (At his campaign events) Probably early onset Alzheimer’s disease, though I would not wish that on my worst enemy!
Enough Said!
Brooke .
P.S. Just for the “Dr. Conspiracy” buffs, I have turned my campaign website back on, for your entertainment go to: http://www.brookepaige.us
True story: In their debate, Sanders’ Republican opponent drove to the auditorium in his Bentley, and wore a business suit.
Sanders drove in a beat-up Saturn, and wore a jacket and slacks. I am proud to say Sanders is Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Get it Right – Please!
Johnnie Mac doesn’t have the “bucks” for a Bentley. He earns his “keep’ by operating a 501C4 charity out of a P.O. Box in White River Junction (google his “Hanover Institute” for a great story on this racket in the Dartmouth Review). Hustling his fellow alumni out of about $100,000 a year to hassle the Dartmouth Board of Directors to be inclusive of Conservative issues. Lots of law suits – no results, except keeping Johnnie in the “green”!
The Bentley part of the story is from the gubernatorial campaign where wealthy securities expert Randy Brock was running against the incumbent “travel agent” Peter Shumlin. We would have been much better off with Randy as Pete (along with the dominate Democrats) is/are heading our “Green Mountains” for the proverbial river of “red ink”, however the same “flatlanders” that vote of “good old Bernie” voted for this loud mouth “knuckle head”.
Just More Divisive Politics and Destructive Government!
Brooke
Yes, I’m sure you have any number of excuses.
Now, looking at the actual election results, I see you did manage to outpoll Mr. MacGovern, 412 votes to 327, in Washington County. And that’s it. I suppose that’s where you live and are known? Oh, by the way, Senator Sanders got 3766 primary votes in the same county. And 21,502 general election votes. Those neighbors of yours must like him all right.
And it’s interesting how you say “When you know you don’t have a shot, it becomes a very enjoyable and cathartic experience.” Is that what this whole Vatteloid nonsense is about?
Secondary to hardcore birthers promoting a vile, fear based, bigoted, xenophobic and racist political agenda veiled in jingoism.
Oops. I did confuse two campaigns.
His foundation actively works against reproductive freedom.
A GOP vote, is a vote for the unholy alliance of neocons and evangelicals.
I believe Sanders did try to run for Senate and Governor back in the 1970s when he was in his thirties with no experience in running for political office. Being elected Mayor of Burlington likely propelled him forward. All Mr. Paige needs to do is start smaller and move up.
http://www.roundtree7.com/2011/07/great-progressive-voices-part-vii/
That’s all it is at its core.
Since you’re from Philly, this is my best street photograph ever, taken in the Reading Terminal Market, around the corner from me:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubereye/2764512431/in/photostream
I bought my motorcycle near the 69th Street terminal, in Upper Darby, where Tina Fey is from.
Reading Terminal Market is my very favorite place to go for lunch, ever. The roast pork sandwich at Danick’s was named best sandwich in American last year. I concur.
But anything you want you can get. It is a like a Mall Food Court that doesn’t suck. Almost every place in there has great food.
Mmmm delicious RWNJ tears!
If you see an Afghan hound with a service vest, just say “hello.”
Oops, Dinic’s.
I will keep an eye out.
The ruling does not depend on his parents being permanent residents just that he was born under US jurisdiction on US soil.
Hypocrite.
nbc: The ruling does not depend on his parents being permanent residents just that he was born under US jurisdiction on US soil.
why don’t they ever get that? are they learning disabled?
Because it is contrary to their narrative and yes.
@H. Brooke Paige: I’m sorry I called you a “fop.”
Will you please let go of this nonsense. Denialists are nurturing a lone wolf.
You seem to be a reasonable person.
Please stop.
Not All Republicans!
Most say that I am a “Bad” Republican because of my moderate tone on abortion, my strong support for the legalization and commercialization of marijuana, diversion for non- violent offenders, elimination of the Federal Reserve System (devolving the responsibilities back to the Treasury), support for civil unions (I am less supportive of “gay” marriage) and a host of other issues that people label a Progressive and Libertarian. I still say I am a Republican however truth be told I am a “Classic Liberal” (now labeled neo-classic) at heart!
More than you wanted to know, Sorry!
Best Wishes,
Brooke
There is another viewpoint!
Here is where you folks lose me, before the 14th amendment a person born in this country to alien parents was considered an alien. After the Civil War, many states tried to block the movement of those newly freed into their states (and territories), it was therefore
necessary to pass the amendment to make it clear that all those born in the nation were considered by their condition of birth were naturalized at birth as “citizens of the United States”. The 14th amendment did not make “natural born Citizens” it did make all born in this country (states and territories) “citizens of the United States” at birth.
So if the Framers recognized all those born on the country, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, why was it necessary to differentiate and create two categories of citizenship “citizens of the United States” and ‘natural born Citizens”? While today this distinction is only of important as to the Qualification for the President of the United States, during the War of 1812, Congress used the same classification for the selection of Sailors and Officers on U. S. naval vessels to protect the ships from being immediately turned against them by the British. The British viewed all those who, before their liberation by the “Declaration” to still be British Subjects still and would immediately upon capture “impress” these Subjects into service to the King. In 1813, Congress passed legislation requiring the 2/3 of the crew and all officers to be “natural born Citizens” to prevent the U. S. naval vessels and crew from being immediately used against the Americans. The “natural born Citizen” rule provided the double protection by assuring the government that their Naval Crews could not be considered as “British Subjects” still (the British consider Subjecthood as irrevocable and inviolate).
You are certainly allowed your viewpoint, however so am I!
Brooke
You are permitted to hold whatever delusions you wish.
However, no one with any power or authority has any obligation to pay attention to them.
Weren’t there many Black Freemen in the North and South!
I believe that many Blacks would have been considered to be “natural born Citizens”, those who were born in the country to citizen (Freeman) parents. Certainly, Blacks were always viewed as equals here in Vermont as specified in our Constitution both when we were an independent nation and once we were permitted to join the Union in 1790, once the Federal Government had been sufficiently empowered to resolve the unwarranted claims over Vermont by that rascally Governor Clinton of New York.
No doubt that the Presidential election prospects of a Black “natural born Citizen” would have probably been no greater than my efforts to best Mr. Sanders, but I am fairly sure it was technically possible.
Brooke
I never thought of the truth as a mere excuse – isn’t it a reason or fact?
Your view point is simply wrong as a matter of history. Prior to the 14th amendment, all legal authority of any significance said we were following the English common law. If you read the debates on the 14th amendment, most thought the amendment unnecessary as the common law was already the rule. However they wanted to make sure Dred Scot was null and void. No legal authority prior 1866 said natural born citizens needed citizen parents. No one. “Citizens of the United states” of course means either natural born or naturalized citizens and no one in history had said it means anything else. These are the facts and the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark settled the issue saying both the natural born citizen clause ans the 14th Amendment were defined by jus soli from the english common law. To say otherwise is lying. You are not entitled to misrepresent what our courts have said.
No, they were not. If they had been considered aliens, then those who remained here would have naturalized at some point and there are absolutely no records of anyone born in the US ever being naturalized (beyond a few children born to diplomats who are an exception under the law). In fact, all free whites born in the colonies before the US existed, and those born in the US, whether before or after the 14th amendment, were always considered to have been born citizens, regardless of the status of their parents.
I challenge you to prove your statement with factual citations of the record. Go on and try, because you cannot…
Upon what do you base that claim?
No, they were not “naturalized at birth”. They required no such naturalization.
Because “citizens of the United States” also includes naturalized citizens.
Could you provide a reference to the text of this legislation? Do you have any references to confirm that it made a distinction between “native born” and “natural born”?
Sometimes when the truth hurts, it’s a little easier to turn to excuses.
Once again we have a person confusing eligibility with electability. While there was no prohibition of a free NBC of any race/sex from being eligible to be President, there would not have been enough Electoral College votes for him/her to become President. It took our nation over 200 years to pull its head sufficiently out of its nether regions to finally attain some maturity.
I have on numerous occasions asked pseudo-Vattellist birthers to show me a single case of the naturalization of a US-born person (beyond a few cases of the children of diplomats). None of them ever have. Yet, there have been many millions of children born in the US to one or more non-citizen parents over the past 235 years, including many millions before the 14th amendment. So where are the naturalizations?
And why would anyone say the 14th amendment naturalizes someone at birth. No one in history has ever said such a thing. The amendment itself distinguishes between between citzens at birth from naturalized citizens. Seriously, it is simply a stupid statement.
No legal authority has ever said that person born on our soil needed to naturalized. In fact, our courts have said that only the foreign born can naturalized. It is one reason we have the 14th amendment is because many members of such congress thought the civil rights act unconstitutional since our courts have said the native born could not be naturalized. People like Brooke seem to completely ignorant of our history on this subject.
Fallacy of equivocation.
Truth can be reason or facts. But the existence of such a definition does not mean you have either.
The only thing you have given so far, is a claim of facts. A claim of fact is neither a fact, nor is it truth. It is, when all is said and done, just a claim.
From the very brief discussion of a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office decision denying an application for a certificate of citizenship:
“The applicant’s Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, indicated that he was born in Oklahoma in 1949. The applicant seeks a certificate of citizenship claiming that he is a native born U.S. citizen. The field office director denied the applicant’s claim stating that he was born in the United States and, as such, does not need any proof of citizenship beyond his birth certificate issued by the State of Oklahoma. On appeal, the applicant does not identify any error or conclusion of law or fact in the director’s decision.”
http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2011/Jan242011_04E2309.pdf
I have to wonder what the applicant was thinking.
I am one of those Jewish New York liberals, like Bernie Sanders.
How come the supreme court has said you are wrong.
“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
Prior to 1866, native born children of aliens are citizens, not aliens. Did you explain to the judges why the supreme court was wrong or did you deceive the court and not tell them what the supreme court had said. Of course, the same court said natural born had the same definition.
“whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,”
A child born at the time of his birth to parents having a permanent domicil and residence in the United States.
is a citizen.
Wong Kim Ark does not apply to Obama no matter how y’all spin it.
Please explain the dissenting opinion.
ROTFL… Or the briefs by the Government lawyers…
But e.vattel has made a logical error by suggesting that residency is a requirement. Nothing in the ruling points to this as under common law, even a child born to those temporarily sojourning in the country would be natural born.
Foolishness…
You should declare yourself a sovereign citizen, and refuse to pay taxes. Do something!
Obama cannot be President according to the 1787 Constitution.
He can be a naturalized citizen via the 14th Amendment if he met the subject to jurisdiction.
Remember Congress has the power to naturalize.
How did Gray define the subject to jurisdiction? Its simple. Both parents must be permanent residents at the child’s birth.
WKA does not apply to Obama.
By the way Minor said there’s another “view” One view there were no doubts and another view there’s doubts.
It’s our side have no doubts, the view a child born to citizen parents.
No Vattel no United States.
If I was asked to define NBC and was prohibited from using any of latin terms and things like native or soil it would be as follows:
A person who is not required to do anything affirmative to be a citizen, in other words a person who is a citizen merely by virtue of his/her birth.
There are clearly only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. By definition, if one is a citizen and not naturalized then he/she must be natural born. The reverse is also true. If the person is a citizen and not natural born then he/she must be naturalized.
There is a very specific set of events that must take place in order to be a naturalized citizen in accordance with various statutes. Therefore if a person is a citizen and has not gone through the steps to become naturalized, he or she must be NBC. As a person who is born a citizen has not gone through the steps to be naturalized, that person must be NBC. There is no other logical conclusion even possible.
Why doesn’t it apply? Explain how it doesn’t.
ROTFL… It is clear that under WKA a child born on US soil, while under its jurisdiction, is indeed a natural born citizen.
That your argument rests on ‘residency’ is something that does not follow from the arguments presented.
So what are you doing about it?
Yes and Minor court did not resolve these doubts. The Court in WKA finally resolved this issue.
Jeez…
Are you forgetting the statement of William Rawle from 1826?
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “
IMO, just like the questions of expatriation or whether the English Common Law was part of Federal Law, there was not unanimity of thought on the issue of citizenship, it is why you can find contradictory statements. It would seem to depend on what the individual member of the Founding generation believed were the effects of the Revolution.
To get a real flavor for the different thoughts, read St. George Tucker’s Note E in his Commentaries. Then read both James Madison’s and Representative James Jackson’s speeches in the case of Dr. Ramsay v. William Smith.
Even the Apuzzo celebrated case of James McClure contains differences of opinion about citizenship.
A child born at the time of his birth to parents having a permanent domicil and residence in the United States …is a citizen.
Affirmed.
Please note Gray never declared WKA a natural born citizen.
There’s nothing you can cite from the Supreme Court a child born to a citizen and a transient alien student is a natural born citizen. it simply does not exist.
it was never doubted a child born to citizen parents …., it was doubted a child born to parents without regard to the status of their parents.
If every one born in the US was a citizen without regard to their parents. Why was Wong Kim Ark necessary?
We also know that
Gypsies may be seen as illegal immigrants as they travel state boundaries with total disregard. We know that even illegal aliens are under full and complete jurisdiction and thus the 14th amendment as well as common law definitions fully apply, making such children natural born citizens.
It’s a conspiracy. I’d be careful.
You’re right. I myself have stopped paying taxes. It’s a relief not to have to file each year.
Also Cowan’s comments during the 14th Amendment help
Because some government officials did not understand the meaning of the foundation of the laws of citizenship in common law and proposed Vattel like explanations. The Court completely and utterly rejected these positions.
Why was WKA necessary? Because people were behaving irresponsibly and against our Constitution.
ROTFL… Fuller was clear that a person like WKA could become our President… And Gray declared WKA natural born because he declared him to be a citizen, and the only path to citizenship was through natural born citizenship as he could not have been naturalized because of the Chinese exclusion laws.
Jeez…
Of course not. He was only 3/5s a person under the 1787 constitution. However, that consitution was amended many times between 1787 and today, so in many respects, what was the constitution in 1787 doesn’t matter.
The 14th Amendment is not a naturalization statute. If congress wished to pass a naturalization statute, it is free to do so without amending the constitution. The constitution grants congress the right to pass uniform laws for naturalization. It’s one of their enumerated powers. The 14th Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution. And one that everyone agrees did not change the actual meaning of citizenship in any form, or create any new form of citizenship, but rather re-affirmed the correct definition of citizenship that always existed, but was muddied by Sanford v. Scott. And even if the rules of citizenship were different, if they’re passing an amendment, it isn’t merely naturalization, because clearly congress doesn’t need to go to those lengths to pass a naturalization statute, it would be changing what the definition of citizenship was before the amendment.
No he did not. Read his actual rationale in the opinion. Residency is never discussed. It only appears in the question presented. The actual discussion of citizenship focused on location of birth. And there is an accepted definition of jurisdiction in the legal community. It means you are subject to the laws, and courts, and can be forced to appear before the judge.
Yes, that was said in dicta in Minor. The court also said they did not need to resolve those doubts at that time. However, it was the central issue in WKA, and at that time, those doubts were answered. So as of WKA the doubts expressed in Minor had been resolved.
Now that is one of the sillier things I’ve seen a birther come out with. In the greater scheme of things, Vattel really wasn’t all that important in the actual founding of our nation. His value came once we a nation, and engaged in foreign affairs, but the founding? Not so much.
More
What does Vattel say about taxes? I’d follow that exactly. Vattel never wrote about traffic laws. I’d ignore them, and refuse to cooperate with traffic tickets.
That was the question presented, which is written by the party writing the cert petition. The court is not limited by the question presented, and in this case, answered more broadly.
No, he only spent his entire rationale discussing natural born citizenship, but he really didn’t mean it to mean WKA was a NBC, even though he situation fit that discussion…oh, and did you ever even bother reading what was affirmed? The lower court declared WKA a NBC. SCOTUS affirmed that opinion without exception.
Except that pesky discussion in WKA about jus soli…….oh, and there is nothing you can quote, from any federal court (or state court I’m guessing) that says NBC requires 2 parent citizens.
So what is your opinion on the eligibility of Tom Vilsack to be President?
WKA does not apply to Obama. If you believe it does cite the Federal law that makes Obama a citizen.
Gray redefined subject to jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment. Both parents must have permanent residency and domcile.
Cite the federal law making Obama a citizen. You cannot. He has to meet the subject to jurisdiction. He cannot.
There’s no way around the holding in WKA. Why do y’all continue to support a Kenyan national?
Remember congress can only naturalize. There’s nothing in the Constitution giving them the power to make natural born citizens.
The 14th Amendment never mentions natural born citizens. Naturalize means to make free.
Vattel is everywhere in the Constitution, including the majority of the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court continues referring to Vattel. They should its law.
Title 8 Section 1401(a) of the US Code.
You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don’t you?
I don’t. I refuse to pay traffic tickets until Obama is removed from office.
You do the same, right?
The two citizen parent theory is a logical impossibility.
Arizona v. US 2012 “Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated: ….
“The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, 94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds.2008)”
The Supreme Court is quoting Vattel while referencing a 2008 edition. What does this 2008 edition say about a natural born citizen.
The words in the 2008 edition are Vattel’s according to the US Supreme Court.
Shall we have a peek? Who wants to go first?
Took A Little While But I Found it!
Material Relating to “NBC” Requirements for Officers and Crew on U.S. Vessels During the War of 1812.
David,
I had all of this material printed out and in a folder, which has vanished into the mountain of research material relating to this case. A quick review of the LOC online resource produced enough to help you out – I hope
There are several important documents which will detail the problems with impressment of U. S. Citizens which I have listed below. Remember that this was one of the causes of the War of 1813.
Best Item
Journal of the House 1813 p. 668 “proclamation of the President …. all the officers and 3/4, at least, of the persons who shall be employed a seamen or sailors on board any public ship or vessel of the United States or any ship or vessel owned by citizens of the United States shall be natural born citizens or citizens thereof at the termination of such war…” The original verbiage had been “natural born citizen” only however there was a great debate over the exclusion of other citizens which gave rise to the additional words, however reading further you will find that the law excluded all persons being natives of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland or France.
Additional items
Journal of the House Jan 18,1812
History of Congress – Jan. 13, 1813 p.864
House Journal 1813 pp. 668-67?
Hope this will help!
Brooke
The Supreme Court referenced this edition:
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2246/Vattel_1519_LFeBk.pdf
chapter xix
Of our Native Country, and several Things
that relate to it.
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….
The two citizen parents theory is a logical impossibility and contrary to every case ever decided in this Country.
What is your point? Who said natural born needed citizen parents? The Engliah didn’t impress persons born outside of England even if they were children of subjects. The English recognized persons born on soil were US citizens.
And You Point Is?
I am at a lose as to how the citation you mention relates to out Article II Presidential Qualification, “natural born Citizen” debate. If the convenience of others here is Vattel:
Section 94 – “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think is advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all of this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obligated to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares to violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effective. But the prohibition ought to be known, as well as the penalty annexed to disobedience those who are ignorant of it, ought to be informed of it when they approach to enter the country. Formerly the Chinese, fearing lest the intercourse of strangers should corrupt the manners of the nation, and impair the maxims of a wise but singular government, forbade all people entering the empire a prohibition that was not inconsistent with justice, provided they did not refuse humane assistance to those whom tempest or necessity obligated to approach their frontiers, It was salutary to the nation, without violating the rights of any individual, or even the duties of humanity, which permit us, in case of competition, to prefer ourselves to others.”
(Law of Nations, Emer de Vattel edited by Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore, 2008)
Could you explain you point in citing this passage – while it seem most reasonable, I do not understand how you see it relating to the “natural born Citizen” discussion.
Brooke
Vattel–don’t you think that section 212 is, by itself, logically impossible. If the condition naturally flows from the father. why do both parents have to be citizens?
I agree. We would not have Obama, if Spiro Agnew had been president.
Those were naturalized US citizens who had been British subjects.
I’m not sure why you think this helps your case. It clearly delineates citizens into natural born citizens and naturalized citizens but does not say anything about native born of alien parents.
“all the officers, and three-fourths, at least, of all the persons who shall be employed as seamen or sailors on board any public ship or vessel of the United States, or any ship or vessel owned by citizens of the United States, shall be natural born citizens of the United States, or citizens thereof at the termination of such war, or servants or citizens of the United States, or persons, who, being resident in the United States, shall, at the time of passing this act, have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, according to the provisions of an act, passed on the 14th day of April, 1802, entitled “An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject,” and shall have been admitted as such, according to the provisions of said act: Provided, however, That, during the continuance of the war now existing between the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and France, no persons, being natives of either of said countries, shall be employed, as officers, mariners, seamen, or sailors, on board the public ships or vessels of the United States, or the ships or vessels of citizens of the United States, unless such persons shall be citizens of the United States at the termination of the war in which the United States are now engaged as aforesaid, or, being resident in the United States, and shall have been admitted as such, according to the provisions of the act before mentioned. And none but ships or vessels navigated according to the provisions of this act, and otherwise qualified according to law, and continuing to be wholly owned by citizens of the United States, shall be denominated and deemed ships or vessels of the United States, entitled to the benefits and privileges appertaining to such ships or vessels.” TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1813
I did not say that this was the “silver bullet”, the fellow asked where he could find the “scoop” and I directed him there. The point, if there was one, is that the British viewed natural born subject[hood] as eternal, irrevocable and irrefutable, qualities the Framers would have rejected in their model of citizenship as they had just freed themselves from the shackles of subjecthood it seems unreasonable that they would consider any aspects of that model when constructing the Presidential Qualifications. The King wished to claim dominion over as many persons as possible, his subjecthood represented no great benefits beyond an assurance of his protection, it was the “Royal Blood” that conferred power and authority to the Royal Family and the House of Lords. The Framers were looking for assurances of loyalty and royalty in selecting the “natural born Citizen” qualification for the Office of President.
Brooke
Well, as you must know if you have read Kettner’s book, the Americans considered the English common law as their birthright.
Nevertheless, they also were committed to the principles of liberty and the exclusion of Monarchy. As it happens, I have been reading a fair amount of material written in the mid 19th century in America regarding the growth of republican ideas in Europe, and in particular the implacable determination of England to stamp out ideas of liberty in France. As Pitt called it, “a war of armed ideas.”
The central argument over which hundreds of thousands died was between rule by merit and rule by birth. If the American’s chose liberty and rejected everything English, then you must also admit that they would have rejected a notion of merit through parentage — a notion that was anathema to liberty-loving Americans.
Your revisionist American history is utterly defective.
So could you explain why the Vermont Constitution uses the English version: Natural Born Subject?
The US didn’t formally adopt the right to expatriation until 1868, two years before England did. Before that it was a subject to much debate with most courts and scholars following the position of Blackstone that only Congress could give the right of expatriation. I suggest you read Kent on the subject. Of course, kent said we followed the common law and the president need only be native born. You do know that every early scholar said you were wrong. Tucker, kent, Story, Bouvier, Dane, Rawle, Paschal, Bayard and on and on and on. Again, there is no early authority that supports you.
Wake me up when the Supreme Court (or any other, for that matter) cites Vattel approvingly on presidential eligibility. ROFL.
Vattelevangelist.
Teddy Roosevelt wrote:
The question of whether or not US Citizens could expatriate was hotly debated in the United States right up until Congress passed an act allowing it in 1868. In the United States v. Isaac Williams, a case that involved expatriation Chief Justice Ellsworth (a Constitutional Convention delegate and member of the Committee of Five that produced the first draft of the Constitution) said,
“The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution. The present question is to be decided by two great principles; one is, that all the members of a civil community are bound to each other by compact; the other is, that one of the parties to this compact cannot dissolve it by his own act. The compact between our community and it’s members is, that the community shall protect it’s members, and on the part of the members, that they will at all times be obedient to the laws of the community, and faithful in it’s defence. It necessarily results that the member cannot dissolve this compact, without the consent or default of the community.”
====================================================================
In Talbot v. Janson, Justice Iredell wrote,
“Some hold, that it is a natural unalienable right [expatriation] in each individual; that it is a right upon which no act of legislation can lawfully be exercised, inasmuch as a legislature might impose dangerous restraints upon it; and, of course, it must be left to every man’s will and pleasure, to go off, when, and in what manner, he pleases.
This opinion is deserving of more deference, because it appears to have the sanction of the Constitution of this state, if not of some other states in the Union.
I must, however, presume to differ from it, for the following reasons:
1. It is not the exercise of a natural right, in which the individual is to be considered as alone concerned. As every man is entitled to claim rights in society, which it is the duty of the society to protect; he, in his turn, is under a solemn obligation to discharge all those duties faithfully, which he owes, as a citizen, to the society of which he is a member …
2. Some writers on the subject of expatriation say, a man shall not expatriate in a time of war, so as to do a prejudice to his country. But if it be a natural, unalienable, right, upon the footing of mere private will, who can say this shall not exercised in time of war, as well as in time of peace …
3. The very statement of an exception in time of war, shews that the writers on the law of nations, upon the subject in general, plainly mean, not that it is a right to be always exercised without the least restraint of his own will and pleasure, but that it is a reasonable and moral right which every man ought to be allowed to exercise, with no other limitation than such as the public safety or interest requires …
4. In some instances, even in time of war, expatriation may fairly be permitted. It ought not then to be restrained. But who is to permit it? The Legislature surely; the constant guardian of the public interest, where a new law is to be made, or an old one dispensed with. …
5. The supposition, that the power may be abused, is of no importance, if the public good requires its exercise. …
====================================================================
In United States v. Gillies, Justice Washington said,
“It may suffice for the present to say, that I must be more enlightened upon this subject [expatriation] than I have been yet, before I can admit that a citizen of the United States can throw off his allegiance to his country without some law authorizing him to do so.”
Of course! The two parent ‘theory’ is inherently Monarchist.
Another ‘proof’ that birthers hate America and its Constitution.
Some more on expatriation:
“From this historical review of the principal discussions in the federal courts on this interesting subject in American jurisprudence, the better opinion would seem to be, that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of government, to be declared by law; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains unaltered.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826)
“Alligience”: It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character. Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 100 (1843)
NATURAL ALLEGIANCE. 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. 1 Bl. Com. 370, 371. “2 Kent’s Com. 42. In American law. The allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native or adopted country, and which, it seems, cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law. 2 Kent’s Com. 43 — 49. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 736 (1851)
In the June 21st, 1797 session of the House of Representatives, they considered a bill that would prohibit US Citizens from servicing in the service of foreign governments. One provision of the proposed bill read,
“And whereas, for the due execution of this and other laws tending to the public security and welfare, it is expedient to define and ascertain the mode in which a citizen may dissolve the ties of citizenship, and become an alien–Be it further enacted, That the citizens of the United States, whether native or adopted, shall be deemed citizens thereof, until they relinquish that character in manner hereinafter provided:”
Only two types of citizens – native and adopted.
Title 8 Section 1401(a) of the US Code.
Does not apply to Obama. Thanks for playing.
Arizona v. US 2012 “Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:….
Why is the Supreme Court referencing Emer de Vattel in Arizona v US 2012?
LSD or Jack Daniels?
Thanks for visiting.
Just out of curiosity, if Vattel had never been born and this, in your august opinion, the United States did not exist, what would occupy the land mass where it is presently located? If it were all Canada, that would be one big country! And just think, the whole place would have single payer health insurance! And there would be hockey teams in places like Phoenix and Tampa!
And yet he is President. Science says that when something has clearly occurred that some theory says cannot happen, it is the theory that is wrong.
Did you write to your Congressman and senators? Did you write to the Attorney General?
No? Why not?
Someone didn’t get the memo.
Someone doesn’t accept reality.
Uh, you do know that the Supreme Court has cited blackstone more than 800 times. The logic of your silly comments excapes me.
You asked me the statute the proves that Obama is a citizen. Title 8 Section 1401(a) of the US Code clearly states that anyone born on US soil is a citizen at birth. President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii was US soil on August 4, 1961. Therefore, contrary to your statement, Tilte 8 Section 1401(a) of the US code clearly does apply to the President.
Interestingly, suppose the BC was altered to show a later birthdate and that the President was really born in Hawaii prior to it becoming a state. Guess what, it would not make a difference. Under another section of Title 8, person born in Hawaii after a certain date and before statehood are also citizens at birth.
You really need to read and understand the law before you make a fool of yourself. Or should I say, more of a fool of yourself.
Emer de Vattel is referenced by Justice Scalia’s in his dissent, because he (Scalia) thought that he (Emer) had something useful to say about the circumstances being discussed in that case.
He also quotes I R. Phillimore on the same subject; Emer is not the only source for his discussion.
The discussion has nothing what-so-ever to do with citizenship (its about immigration).
I don’t know if anyone has counted how many times a Supreme Court Justice has cited Shakespeare, but I would guess it is dozens, if not hundreds. So, I guess Hamlet is the law of the land (thank goodness it isn’t Titus Andronicus).
It certainly does if, just for example, you’re one of a fringe group of delusional and openly racist birther douche nozzles who reek of desperation.
Why is the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia) citing Blackstone in District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370?
“Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999)”
But more importantly why is the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia) citing William Rawle?
“In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment”
And what did the “prominent lawyer” William Rawle say in his “influential treatise”,
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “
Thanks for playing, Don Pardo, tell our losing contestants what they get for playing?
Of course not, he is black…
Well yes, if he had been born outside our nation, he could have been a naturalized citizen. But the 14th Amendment is not a naturalization statute but rather recognizes that under our constitution there are but two kids of citizens: Natural-born and Natural-ized. The former through our common law practices: birth on soil subject to jurisdiction, the latter through statute.
We’re getting a bit desperate here are we not 🙂
The Dred Scott decision says that the only Blacks who could potentially be considered a citizen of any sort are those who never had a slave as an ancestor (specifically it states that any freed slave is still not eligible to be a citizen). Additionally, the Dred Scott case stated that while the states may give foreigners or other persons an equal status within the state (like Vermont making Black residents “citizens of the state”), that did not make them citizens of the United States.
In fact, during the discussions around the 14th Amendment and the preceding civil rights law, it was indeed raised that blacks born on soil under our jurisdiction were indeed natural born. I have not seen any references that their father had to be a freeman though…
Wishful thinking perhaps?
Well I think I did make a mistake in characterizing it as being about immigration. I think it is more about States Rights than immigration.
No, it doesn’t do much for either one of us. You admit that it’s not a silver bullet; it’s more like a lead balloon. Now what about the other question– upon what do you base your claim that “before the 14th amendment a person born in this country to alien parents was considered an alien”?
“It’s a radio. It’s a radio without a car. Yes, this AM-FM crank powered radio is yours for playing today. We’ll be back with another contestant on ‘Who’s Our President.’ ”
never ran for president. that’s one of my questions, longstanding no one will touch. where else is natural born used besides article two ?? (or article one as bozo the vp calls it)
that’s pretty funny bill, you commenting on admission to practice, that’s rich…
The real funny part is why Scott e is not addressing the excellent comments by Doc C?
Natural born is limited to the presidential qualification. I fail to see much relevance here as the court in WKA observes that in order to establish if WKA was a citizen, and because he was not a naturalized citizen, they had to look at how the Constitution uses the relevant terms. The use of ‘natural born’ suggested that citizens could be born into a country and thus the Supreme Court had to figure out the meaning of the term, which they found in Common Law to simply mean ‘birth on soil, under jurisdiction’. This was reflected in the 14th Amendment which was merely declarative of the facts that birth or naturalization on soil makes one a citizen, the former natural-born, the latter natural-ized.
Residency has no impact other than perhaps to establish if one is born under jurisdiction, but the Court has also addressed that children born to undocumented alien parents are still born under our jurisdiction and the 14th applies.
Again, the courts have been quite consistent on this matter: Jus soli has always been to source of our natural citizenship, which, according to Vattel, is something best left to the individual nations to define.
Well, I suppose if all you care about is that “natural” law, those little details just don’t matter.
In common English, “natural born” means from birth. There was a book and movie called “natural Born Killers”, in which a couple killed people. There was no suggestion that the killers’ parents were murderers.
So, I am able to conclude that a natural born killer is a killer from birth and a natural born citizen is a citizen from birth. And I did so based solely on logic and the knowledge of linguistic structures. I didn’t even need to get down into the weeds of court cases.
I had not see that one until I checked and indeed in the Appellant’s brief such a suggestion is made on page 34.
Good find. Of course we already knew that that Government believed that WKA had been declared to be a natural-born citizen by the lower court…
Why is the Supreme Court referencing Emer de Vattel in Arizona v US 2012?
Taking another look the edition referenced by Justice Scalia it’s the 1797 edition
a new edition,
Revised, corrected, and enriched with many valuable Notes never
before translated into English.
london:
printed for g. g. and j. robinson, paternoster-row.
1797.
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2246/Vattel_1519_LFeBk.pdf
The words in the 1797 are from Emer Vattel according to Justice Scalia.
If Justice Scalia can quote Vattel from the 1797 saying its from the 1758 edition can he quote from chapter 212.
Sure he can.
Meaningless drivel…
Who cares? The dissenting argument holds no weight in american law
Bill? Why you calling him bill
Wong Kim Ark does not apply to Obama. His father was not an immigrant, he was not a permanent resident. He was in the US on a temporary stay.
Gray states to be a citizen both parents MUST be permanent residents. Obama was born a British subject. This disqualifies him meeting the subject to jurisdiction in the US Code, the Constitution, and the 14th naturalization Amendment.
How can this site claim Obama is a natural born citizen when he cannot qualify as a citizen.
Obama is a manufactured citizen.
You are confusing sufficient and necessary. There is no suggestion that one has to be a permanent citizen, in fact the Court shows that natural born citizen applies to anyone who even temporarily visits the country and has an issue.
Funny but as a child born on US soil, he clearly is a citizen, and thus a natural born.
No, your ‘arguments’ may be such but Obama is by any legal standard a citizen of our Nation and by virtue of his birth on soil, a natural born as well.
Sigh… You are getting quite desperate here… Fascinating.
Are you suggesting Obama is a cyberdyne systems model T-101?
Why is the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia) citing Blackstone in District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370?
“Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999)”
But more importantly why is the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia) citing William Rawle?
“In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment”
And what did the “prominent lawyer” William Rawle say in his “influential treatise”,
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “
The difference between William Rawle and de Vattel is that Rawle actually knew the Founders.
He never made such a statement.
Citing Cockburn and Dicey
and
Have you still not read the ruling?
And Gray
You are lying. The court never says the common law was adopted which included domiciled residents and, of course, does not require such. That is why we have vacation babies today.
Gray pointed out that the supreme court had already stated that any visitors were fully subject to our jurisdiction, as any book on public law will state.
“In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that, upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war, and that the implied license under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants for purposes of business or pleasure can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found.”
Public law 101, which is way over your head. The court goes on to state that “subject to the jurisdiction” only was intended to exclude the common law exclusions. However, he uses some bit words, so it might be over your head.
Assuming that e.vattel has ever bothered to read US v WKA.
That’s become kind of a recurring theme today, hasn’t it?
EX PARTE CHIN KING.
The condition of the father did matter in Wong Kim Ark. He must be a permanent resident.
No such requirement can be found in the ruling and in fact, the ruling contradict this.
As I said before, you may try to actually read the ruling before making such foolish assertions that have been fully and totally debunked
Desperate much?
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,
whether a child born in the United States,
of parents
, who, at the time of his birth,
have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,
becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”
Affirmed
The condition of the father does matter to attain birthright citizenship. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii, his father needed to naturalize.
We know this did not happen. He was denied his temporary stay and returned to Kenya.
Your life would be greatly improved if you actually learned how to read legal opinions, particularly SCOTUS opinions. There is something called questions presented, which the Court is quoting here, which are actually provided by the parites. Then there is something known as the rationale. Guess which one is binding precident? Guess which one made no mention of the condition of the parents? The Court is not bound to only answer the questions presented. And here it went beyond it when stating why exactly WKA was a natural born citizen.
You are confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
The court showed how natural born means a child born on soil regardless of the status of the parent as long as he was born under the jurisdiction. As we have shown, it does not matter if one is a permanent or temporary visitor, resident etc, all that matters is presence in country. The fact that the parents were domiciled meant that WKA definitely was born under jurisdiction.
I told you to read it, not just the cliff notes.
Sigh… The sight of despair is never enjoyable.
Not talking about citizenship, though is it? It’s talking about international relations…the right to exclude foreigners. No one denies that Vattel has always been cited for international law (although not nearly as much these days). (BTW, you did notice it wasn’t the opinion of the Court…it was just a concurrance).
Are you really this bad at reading? He tells you exactly which edition he’s using….and it’s not the 1797…but what’s 211 years between friends.
“The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, 94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).”
But he never has, has he?
Man (and I do humbly beg your pardon, Doc, but I beg provocation), is this e.vattel eat up with the dumbass, or what? Now I’ve learned to not expect the nationality laws of the United States to make absolutely perfect sense, but how– and never mind the 14th Amendment’s subsequently codified affirmation of the principle of jus soli– if, as provided for in 8 USC 1401(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
is a citizen of the United States at birth, how would a person born in one of the fifty United States to such a parent not acquire U.S. citizenship when a person born, to such a patent, in American Samoa or Swains Island would?
Variations on a Theme by the Birthers, a Symphony of the Stupid.
While It’s NOT all an act …
While I am quite serious about this entire matter, I try to maintain my sense of humor! I try my best to turn the other cheek to all of the darkness in so many of the messages directed to me – realizing that the anonymity of the internet tends to make folks less hospitable.
Your “performance art” comment gave me a little chuckle when I read it, and has brightened my attitude towards all of this ever since!
Again I take all of this very seriously, however I also take the rabid tone of many of the participates with a “grain of salt”.
So thank you “Misha” for brightening my day (really my week)~
All the Best,
Brooke
“The Proud Vattelian”
Does it matter? Birthers who actually read primary source material show incredible lack of understanding between sufficiency and necessity. We can discuss Minor, we can discuss WKA, but don’t forget SR511, where they did the exact same thing to a non binding resolution. It goes beyond confirmation bias and goes to a fundamental lack of ability to think critically.
Which is useless, sad and laughable.
“Satisfied with their decision” doesn’t mean you’ll admit you were wrong. It’s extremely rare for a birther to admit he or she was wrong. I’ve only seen it a couple of times in five years. For many birthers that I’ve observed, seeking the truth is a smokescreen to bolster their political and/or bigoted agenda.
To not be a birther you have to be able to state that President Barack Obama was eligible for the office of President as a natural born citizen.
My guess? You’ll probably vanish as so many others have.
Or you’ll declare that you accept the decision with the qualification that the judges were either heavily biased or misinformed on the law. Apuzzo does it all the time.
That’s how birthers roll.
So then the question is…… and I really am serious about desiring a straight answer, if you would, what do you plan to do about it?
I mean peddling your ideas here in this blog is all very well and fine. We engage you because it amuses us to do so. But what is your ultimate goal? Surely you realize that no one here has any authority to remove Obama from office, or anything along that line. The best you could hope for here is to convince someone weak of mind to agree with you, which would accomplish nothing in any event.
So what do you plan to do about it?
Are you planning to take your “concerns” to court? We already know the courts have no jurisdiction.
Are you planning to take your “concerns” to Congress? Congress has been very plain and direct that birtherism (de Vattelism) is not worth consideration.
What I’m saying is, considering that the entire Judicial branch, the entire Legislative branch, and the entire Executive branch, every credentialed Constitutional expert, the research branch of the Library of Congress, and 200+ years of jurisprudence disagrees with you… what are you planning to do about it?
I mean I can see you’re wrong, that much is a given, but I fail to see what you hope to achieve? Are you just hoping to get attention? Any attention at all, even if it’s negative? Are you hoping to get elected President yourself riding the wave of birther support? Are you hoping to make a million selling books about your fallacies to other birthers?
In short… what is your purpose?
Why do you call yourself this?
What does a ‘Vattelian’ believe, and what are the implications of these beliefs for President Obama?
What are you proud about, when you see yourself as a Vattelian? Do you take pride in knowing of this writer? Or in supporting his beliefs?
How, for example, do you feel about his idea of capturing women from overseas to assist a male-dominated population – do the border areas of Canada need to watch out??? Or is your support for Vattel limited to misinterpreting ‘parens’?
Do tell.
Hey Misha Marinsky, how do like that, he turned his cheek to your anonymous darkness.
BTW, how did we let this bit of nonsense slip?: “[Bernie Sanders] came to Vermont after exiting Israel wgen (sic) they explained to him that since his parents were not holocaust survivors he would have to serve in the military.” Huh?!?! Or this: “When the U.S. Government picked his draft number it was off the (sic) Canada, for a ‘little visit’ until the smoke cleared.” FYI, Sanders was too old to be drafted.
Paige is a slanderous creep, and more….
—-
—-
Well, she is giving you more attention than the Vermont Supreme Court will 🙂
“H. Brooke Paige: I have taken my controversy to those I thought best able and authorized to decide the issue with finality and I will be satisfied with their decision and with the fact that I have done all that I could to find the truth.”
Vatteletubby Paige will do what all birthers do when the Vermont Supreme Court slams the door in his face; he will either claim victory a la Apuzzo and disappear, or he will move the goalposts further down into the rabbit hole and announce that he will accept their decision only after they change their ruling in some way.
“Satisfied with their decision” would only happen if they rule against the law, against 237 years of precedent, and against the Constitution of the United States of America. In other words, he’ll never be satisfied.
He’s just a plain, old, bitter, white, racist birther trying to make up new rules to disqualify the black president after two legal and Constitutional elections. A despicable excuse for an American (if he, himself is one).
So, if Apuzzo couldn’t be admitted, who wrote and signed your brief? You? Want to show it to us to see what you are proud of?
“Just the Facts, Just the Facts!”
Sander’s “bio” has been highly sanitized and one would need to head for the “microfilm” or the stacks at the library to find the hard copy on a lot of this. As to his early losses, Sanders ran for U.S. Senate in ’72 and ’74 and for Vermont Governor in ’72 and ’76 in all four elections he was only to garner 6% of the vote. – he then suspended his political ambitions to pursue carpentry, film making (although a significant effort to unearth these revolutionary films, has been unsuccessful) and writing. He also was able to get a “Instructor”” gig at the world famous Goddard College, despite the fact that he only had earned a “Bachelor’s Degree” at Chicago.
In 1981 ,Sanders reentered the political arena running for the office of mayor of Burlington Vermont he was the victor in a four way race besting the second highest vote getter by a mere 10 votes.
We all have a few skeletons in our closets and certainly Mr. Sanders is no exception.
Credit where credit is due! Mr. Sanders has used his modest talents effectively and today, though he would prefer we didn’t notice, he and his second wife, Jane, have made themselves the millionaires they love to rail against.
You have to give him credit for being yet another amazing American Success Story!
Despite all this nation’s troubles, you must admit America is the Land of Opportunity !
Brooke Paige
postscript – I have not included any of the “creepy” stuff in any of my writings. bp
—
Well, I notice you didn’t even try to defend the particular slander I pointed out. You’ve lost all credibility, pal.
Well known here in Vermont, however I view documenting this for you as counterproductive as no matter what resources I direct you to – you will only find them insufficient or incredible, again resorting to more name calling!
I don’t like to engage in exercises in futility!
Brooke
postscript – I am quite sure that we could never be “pals” – really?
Really!
Where did you dream up all of this “racist” stuff! It is in your mind only.
I am quite sure that 75% -80% of all “minority” citizens in this country are also “natural born Citizens”. The same as is true of those labeled as the “majority! Reflecting on famous blacks for just a moment(assuming his is the “racism” you were pointing to): Mr. Jackson, Sr., Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Keyes, Mr. Walter Williams, and Mr. Thomas Sowell all immediately come to mind as qualified in both the constitutional sense and as having sufficient practical experience. My favorite, Mr. Williams is a strong Constitutionalist, a brilliant economist (distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University), he is a practical fellow with a remarkable sense of humor – qualities Washington seems to lack in these desperate times. (Walter was raised in West Philly which may have a little to do with my preference.)
So next time you want to “whip out” your “racist” diatribe – make sure you are not aiming it at a fellow who spent the last thirty years working in West Philly and has had(and still cherishes) warm relations and friendship with folks of every background and heritage.
The anonymity of the “net” truly breeds an all too aggressive tone!
Brooke
—-
Ah, of course–you have plenty of time to address everything else, but addressing specific allegations of slander would be counterproductive (indeed, counterproductive to the goal of your slander).
“No matter what resources I direct you to…” Really? You haven’t directed me to one single resource.
So please, show me one source that says an American in Israel must serve in the Israeli military, except if his parents are holocaust survivors??? (Indeed, I’d be curious to see one source that says that holocaust survivorship is a factor in Israeli military service). And please, show me a source that says the U.S. Government picked Sander’s draft number, when the draft applied to men born in 1944 or after, and Sanders was born in 1941.
—-
Slander is aggressive, regardless if you couch it in a passive aggressive tone.
It has been settled law since 1898, and affirmed recently in December 2008, with Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation
After graduating for U of Chicago in 1964, Sanders and his young bride emigrated to Israel to pursue what they viewed as the ultimate socialist life style, that of living in the a kibbutz and obtaining citizenship through the “right of return”. As I am sure you are aware Israel law follows jus sanguinis as the primary mechanism by which an individual obtains citizenship. It was his desire to become an Israel citizen that was going to create his obligation to serve in the Israel Defense Forces. It was this obligation that motivated Mr. Sanders to return to the United States
Brooke.
postscript: When I get some time – I will locate the information on his move to Canada, It is quite possible, though contrary to all that I have read or heard (hearsay is always a poor resource), that Sanders was motivated by adherence to his Anti-War beliefs and a wish to support those who had “relocated” and not his own personal obligation that motivated his Canadian “visit”.bp
An audio recording of the oral argument in Paige v. Condos is available here:
http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/LC/audioarguments/2012-439.zip
Cool choice but as you pointed out, it came with an high price to pay.
When you attach yourself to a blatantly racist crusade whose purpose is to unconstitutionally oust our first black president, based on some obscure 18th century book from a Swiss philosopher (not even lawmaker), and you join forces with the likes of avowed racists like Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz, Van Irion, and Larry Klayman, it doesn’t matter how many black people you’ve met. You’re championing a racist cause; you’re a racist.
If you were pro-American, you’d aver to the US Constitution and US Supreme Court precedent, instead of making up new qualifications for our first black president based on some non-American, non-lawmaker’s philosophical manifesto, written before our country was even founded.
Vattelevangelist birthers – like you – are bigoted racists. Now own it.
And quit wasting precious court time and taxpayer resources on your ridiculous, anti-Constitutional crusade.
Next thing you’ll tell us, Brooksie, is that Carl the black exterminator is your best friend.
Admit it; your intention, however misdirected and preposterous, is to somehow establish Supreme Court precedent that prohibits black Americans who have African tribespeople in their families from becoming president.
If you were a sane person at one time, all the Apuzzo-fluffing has taken a toll on your senses.
It also happened to Douglas Fraser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Fraser
That is exactly what is behind all this bloviating. No one heard of de Vattel, myself included, until Donofrio dug his tome out of a dustbin in 2008.
—-
Hmmm. First, I note you have not given me any source.
Second, you say he emigrated to Israel. If you have a source for that, I’d be interested in seeing it. I know that he spent time there on a kibbutz, as many people do, but that is hardly the same thing as emigrating. Were his parents Israeli citizens? (I don’t think so, but perhaps you have a source for this?) If his parents were not Israeli citizens, why mention jus sanguinis? Also, what does the “right of return” have to do with anything, if he didn’t actually apply for citizenship? And from what source have you concluded that, but for the Israeli draft, he would have remained in Israel and become an Israeli citizen? The way you describe it, you are suggesting that he was ignorant of Israeli law, then travelled there with the intent of becoming a citizen, and then decided he better leave lest he be drafted. Please cite the source for this. And, again, what does any of this have to do with whether or not his parents were holocaust survivors?
Third, as for your initial statement saying Sanders illegally left the U.S. when his number was called–yes “hearsay is always a poor resource”. And in fact, repeating slanderous hearsay is slander nonetheless. But, as you’ve made clear, if you repeat it enough, it will become “Well known here in Vermont.”
Well now.
—
The Court in Dred Scott knew about Vattel; the Court relied upon Vattel to reach it’s decision…
H. Brook Paige on Senator Sanders – “When the U.S. Government picked his draft number it was off the Canada, for a “little visit” until the smoke cleared. ”
Since Sanders was born in 1941 and the first draft lottery was started in 1969 for men born between 1944 and 1950, he could not be included in that lottery.
So what did you mean by “[w]hen the U.S. Government picked his draft number”?
Isn’t it obvious? Mr Paige came down with a case of MSU (Making Shit Up)
Listening to the oral arguments, my impression is the Court will affirm Judge Bent’s decision on standing.
If so Mr. Paige will you continue your quest? If so on what basis would you try to argue a case before the SCOTUS?
BTW, if Mario Apuzzo was guiding you and Mr. Apuzzo was able to serve Candidate Obama in New Jersey – why didn’t’ you follow his example?
What move to Canada? Do you have a source for your claim?
According to available biographical sketches of Sanders, he graduated the University of Chicago in 1964, spent some time on a kibbutz in Israel, and then moved to Vermont later in 1964. Based upon that timeline, he could not have spent more than six months in Israel.
He was exempt from the draft upon graduation because he was married. He turned 26 on September 8, 1967 and thereafter his number never “came up” because he was too old to be drafted.
He may have visited Canada from time to time, which would hardly be surprising since Vermont borders Canada. He couldn’t have been a draft dodger because he ran for political office in Vermont in 1971 and 1972, while the war was still going strong.
Like his arguments before the Vermont Supreme Court, Paige’s Senator Sanders rant was not well researched or throughout.
I’m still fascinated by the fact he could not effect service on Candidate Obama while his mentor had done exactly that in New Jersey. Did Mario not tell him how to serve a candidate? Did Paige never ask? Were the rules different in Vermont than New Jersey?
I did not know that. Thank you.
That is not true.
The Time has Come to Bid All of You a Fond Farewell !
I have found my time with you most enlightening and entertaining AND quite addictive !
However, the folks on my side of the fence are now criticizing me for spending so much of my time with you and at their expense. So I find it necessary to bid you a fond adieu! I have enjoyed my visit thoroughly, it is far more interesting to chat with those with whom you have a substantially different viewpoint. I am not really “into” lengthy conversations that are little more than a mutual admiration society – at the same time I do not wish to ignore and enrage those who have supported and encouraged by efforts,
If I am successful, I will not return – never much for gloating! However if I am not successful I will return to receive my just chastisement – I promise !
Respectfully,
H. Brooke Paige
Plaintiff/Appellant, pro se
Paige v. State of Vermont, et al.
—
I think I misspoke. It was Justice Daniels’ concurring opinion in Dred Scott that heavily cited Vattel.
I listened to the oral arguments – you’ll be back.
H. Brooke Paige: If I am successful, I will not return – never much for gloating! However if I am not successful I will return to receive my just chastisement – I promise !
then i guess we will be seeing you again – quelle dommage pour nous
—-
Too bad your birther fans won’t even give you the time to let you answer for your false statements about Sanders experience in Israel and about Israeli law. But at least you admitted the possibility that you might have been wrong when you slanderously stated that Bernie Sanders was called up for the draft and left the country to avoid the law. Ta ta.
===
You are right, I was mistaken. It was Justice Daniels’ concurring opinion in Dred Scott that cited Vattel.
I listened to the audio. Thanks for posting the link Doc. Hell will freeze over to absolute zero before that court rules in favor of Paige.
For those interested… Oral arguments by Paige
Main problems
1. Paige argues that before 14th Amendment, children born on US soil to foreign parents would not gain citizenship:
Why the Court will reject
The court in US v Wong Kim Ark that this was the case even before the passing of the 14th Amendment which was merely declaratory of the Common Law practice.
2. Failed to properly serve President Obama
Why the Court will reject
The Court may not be able to issue an order if he is not a party to the case. Paige ‘arguments’ that Obama has been a party to many cases in the past, and he has chosen not to be a party is not very convincing in light of the rules of the court.
3. Why should a State Court issue such an order which is clearly a federal question best left to Congress? What authority does a State Court have? Paige argues that it certainly is not Congres, citing Daniel Tokaji’s The justiciability of the eligibility question. Paige misunderstands Tokaji who does not argue that Congress is certainly not the place. He argues that non-justiciable quesiton doctrine excludes the Federal Courts.
Tokaji suggests that
Of course mootness and standing are more likely why Paige will fail.
4. What are you asking for? Judge ruled “no standing”… No personal injury… Paige insists that he has some injury but fails to explain. Judge: Put this in some context… How many non qualified in Congress or State legistlature. Paige misrepresents President Arthur keeping his status a secret… Funny how Paige is not fully informing the court here.
Paige accepts the State of Hawaii’s Birth Certificate and that President Obama is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
…
Not a very convincing argument so far but there are 5 more minutes. So far Paige has failed to impress me as he is sloppy in his arguments and the Court will quickly realize that the ruling in US v WKA totally contradicts Paige’s assertions about the status of children born on US soil to alien parents.
In the Lower Court, the Judge already informed why Prof Tokaji was wrong
In the Superior Court, Paige also tried to have the court enter default for Obama, but the Court observed that Paige had failed to properly service the President
You’re leaving without backing up your assertions about Bernie Sanders? Or without conceding that your assertions have no basis in fact?
That is the coward’s way out. Either provide evidence of your claims, or admit that you were wrong.
As usual anytime a birther comes here and gets trounced they run off. Folks on your side of the fence are criticizing you because of how you keep getting your butt handed to you.
I believe the history of his lawsuit suggests that he may not really be able to admit to being wrong.
If this court were to say that I have standing, two in the Presidential question that there is jurisdiction and venue and third, a review of the historic facts…
Look at the underlying material. But that’s where I am troubled by your failure to serve President Obama… One sided presentation by you. So there is no Barack Obama side.
Mumble, mumble, mumble… Republicans who are ineligible… mumble mumble mumble
Help me out that I do not have to sue again…
His (Obama’s) minions are trying to repeal the 22nd amendment.
Totally speculative…
Paige is getting a bit too familiar with the Court… He appears to be extremely nervous.
Yawn…
Nomination was completed, to be real honest, I was waiting for someone with far deeper pockets and experience to step forward…
He should have done so….
Roe v Wade…
Judge: Ok…
They do not sound very convinced…
Judge: Ok… Ok, thank you very much (interrupting Paige)
Fascinating…
Counsel for the SOS
Judge: Was there or was there not service in the case of Obama?
Counsel: There was not service under the law. The trial court agreed that service had not been perfected.
Even with counsel that was NOT representing Obama, the judge appeared to be not very convinced.
How many of the 200 cases fit into the Paige category (about 50).
Judge: Some still in process?
Judge: 201 dismissed, 207 filed
Judge:Any dismissed for lack of service?
Counsel: Court relied on that, among other things?
Judge: All filed in state court?
Counsel: Nope
Judge: Any good standing rulings?
Counsel: Holland v McCain, several others. Berg v Obama, all dealing with federal standards of standing. VT court has adopted the same rules.
The counsel for the SOS is doing a great job at addressing the issue of standing and answering the judges with many references.
Judge: Why would a voter not have standing
Counsel: Rules of standing, require a specific an injury, not a generalized grievance.
Judge: Don’t we as voters have not a more direct interest in the outcome, the purity of the ballot?
Judge: But then there is no reason to have qualifications? Hardly anyone will have basis to complain.
Counsel: Arguably other candidates would have standing.
Issues of authority of SOS to determine eligibility, citing Bowen ruling that this would leave the presidential nomination to each of the 50 states.
Judge: So who has standing? Allowing voters to bring suit if there is no standing for official? Here you are saying there is no avenue.
Counsel: My apologies if I have given the idea that there is no avenue. One can pursue this through: 1) voting process 2) challenger can file complaint 3) ultimately it is congress’s role to determine these issues.
After listening to it, the only question is whether or not the Court’s denial of Paige’s case will even mention the two-citizen parent stuff. In the end maybe they will devote a short paragraph confirming Wong Kim Ark/Ankeny precedent.
Most likely they will just agree with the lower court judge that Paige failed to perfect service… But one can hope that they will get to address some of his foolish claims as well. Unlikely though that they will proceed beyond lack of service and lack of standing.
I agree the lack of service on Candidate Obama is fatal. But that same issue existed in the lower court and Judge Bent took the time to address the two-citizen stuff. So we’ll see. It should show up soon in the Courts unpublished opinion section.
What I said upthread was that I was fascinated by the fact that Mario was guiding Paige and Mario somehow was able to serve the Obama Campaign, so why couldn’t Paige? Why couldn’t Paige use the same technique?
Excellent question… Kerchner sued President Obama as President and Individual. Perhaps it’s simpler to sue a President than an individual?
Why did Paige fail to perfect service, even though the Court had raised the issue much earlier.
Actually, I was referring to Purpura v. Obama.
Ah, Purpura, had forgotten about that disaster. Perhaps different rules?
My conspiracy theory:
The handlers behind the birther movement decided it was better to lose cases on technicalities to keep the “never ruled on the merits” meme alive, so they told Mario to stop the whole “proper service” thing.
I mean, it can’t be a coincidence *all* birthers, including lawyers like Taitz and Klayman, suddenly forget how to breathe, to use an analogy.
If the Lakers were suddenly 0-30 from the free throw line, wouldn’t you assume something sinister is going on?
Pupura was a ballot challenge as I recall. I would assume different rules. I doubt that service was required, just filing papers with the SoS.
I would just assume they brought Shaq back.
Listening to the audio, it doesn’t even get past 5 minutes before Paigey outright lies when he states to the court that he had “served” the President on “numerous occassions”.
Oh and I see that Paigey also singularly failed to respond when I asked him on the 26th….
So, Brookie,
If you sup so long and hard at the font of Vattel how do you reconcile your personal and wholly unsupported opinion on NBC status with the directly contradicting statement in 214 where he states that in other countries, naming England (you know then one the US derived its law from), Jus Soli is the rule….?
Dred Scott makes quoting de Vattel more pernicious.
Daniels’ quote had nothing to do with natural born citizenship and it is unethical to say so, though that won’t stop the birthers. Daniels was pointing out that the writers on government said citizens had to have equal privileges and hence slaves could not be citizens. He said:
“But beyond this, there is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on Government or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen which has not been understood as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment, or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.”
To support this, he cited, as an example, a writer on government, i.e., Vattel. One paragraph he cited from Vattel to make this point on equality was:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
The “equally” in the first sentence was emphaized by Daniels as such was the relevant part or the paragraph that addressed the point he was discussing. The second sentence is mere extraneous material irrelevant to such topic. After quoting Vattel, Daniels concludes that slaves cannot be citizens. It is simply dishonest to say that Daniels agreed with Vattel’s definition on natural born. It is accurate that he agreed with Vattel that citizens are the mebers of a civil society that “equally participate in its advantages.”
Indeed. At 5:24 p.m. yesterday Paige posted this:
“When I get some time – I will locate the information on his [Bernie Sanders’] move to Canada.”
He was challenged by several people to cite a source for his claims.
At 9:19 p.m. he runs off with his tail between his legs, without providing any evidence for his assertions about Sanders. He will not even acknowledge that he was wrong about Sanders’ draft number coming up, even though Sanders clearly was, by several years, too old for the draft when the draft lottery was instituted.
A typically gutless birther. And they wonder why we have nothing but contempt for them.
Nah, I’d just assume they resigned Shaq
I’d be surprised to hear any birther claim to rely on Daniels’ opinion for anything; they may be unethical but are they so stupid as to articulate a reliance on any part of Dred Scott? (If they have, I’d love to see it). And yes, Daniels pointed out that Vattel and other writers on government said citizens had to have equal privileges, so slaves could not be citizens and, indeed, former slaves could not be citizens unless citizenship was granted by the proper sovereign. Daniels found a freed slave more analogous to abandoned property, with no more rights to citizenship than he had before being freed.
I have no idea whether Daniels agreed with Vattel’s definition of natural born citizenship, as he did not expressly say so or rely upon it for his opinion. I suspect he did, however, since he used the ink necessary to again quote Vattel, immediately following the “extraneous material” you quoted, as follows:
“Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.'” (Daniels, J,, quoting Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101).
Yes, I have seen the Daniels opinion relied on, for example:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Yeah. Occam’s Razor and all that.
Maybe he works at the burger joint that the President likes to visit when he’s in town?
—-
Wow, just wow! Thanks for the link. Now, I see where Ballantine was coming from on this.
I’ve seen it in the laundry list of opinions that mention the Vattel citation (“The Venus, etc”). I remember that specific list used to get copied a lot off of one birther site, but I can’t remember which one. The ones doing the copying had no idea what they were doing.
I think Dred Scott and Wong Kim Ark provide perfect and telling examples of the exact kinds of “doubts” Chief Justice Waite referred to in Minor, and I think anybody who wants to rely on Minor for an exclusive definition of “natural born citizen” needs to be reminded of that.
Brooke and/or E.Vattel,
I offer you a simple question:
What is an anchor baby?
What is the status of their citizenship?
If you don’t understand the question, then try this:
Two people from a foreign country come to the US.
Neither are US citizens.
They have a baby while here in the US.
What is the nationality of this new baby?
That’s why I wrote it is pernicious.
“While as repugnant as slavery was and still is, no court or amendment has over turned the meaning of “natural born citizen” from Dred Scott.”
Completely disingenuous. It appeals to the gullible.
What was the nationality of Moses. He was born in Egypt.
Y’all are forgetting Professor Gilmore when he wrote Vattel’s chapter 212 is in the Constitution.
But y’all read Gilmore’s lecture and noted he made additional remarks on citizenship. Y’all tried a ruse. Gilmore did not say the additional remarks were in the Constitution.
This site has been spinning for years the importance Vattel made forming this country. It’s about time it stopped.
Heck Justice Scalia is saying its Vattel speaking in the 1797 edition. Vattel is quoted in Dredd Scott by Daniels.
Morse quotes Vattel from a french edition, the same wording from the 1758.
This site is not objective. Its an Obama spin machine and its harmful to the republic.
No Vattel no United States. Let me part with a quote from William Wordsworth:
“Yearnings to be with her own natural kind.” It’s what the founders wanted…to be with their own natural kind.
Jefferson said the government should be homogeneous and only natural born citizens should be employed.
e.vattel:
what is your daily intake of kool aid and/or other bizarre substances?
No, he was born in the Lower East Side.
The Confederacy lost. Look into it. And crawl back under your rock.
When Justice Scalia in 2012 quotes “Emer Vattel” and he writes the “1758 edition” and references a 2008 edition and the 2008 is the 1797 edition.
It pretty much debunks this site.
—-
Very provocative question e.vattel. Moses’ parents were born in Egypt, and so were his grandparents and so on and so on–since the time Jacob and his family came to Egypt about 400 years before Moses. Do you think Moses should have been entitled to Egyptian “citizenship”?
ROTFL.. Poor e.vattel, now engaged in minor distractions to avoid accepting that natural born means birth on soil, under jurisdiction.
Nothing to do with the status of the parents
When it comes to international law Vattel was one of the writers consulted. However, Vattel himself admitted that a nation has the right to chose who are its citizens through municipal law, not international law.
The End…
While Vattel was cited in WKA, the courts rejected the arguments outright.
The very End…
—–
Indeed, another reference to Dred Scott…
As for Morse, I assume you are referring to the attorney, Alexander Porter Morse, who wrote about citizenship, and who also represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson ….
Every time you lie about Professor Gilmore, he cries, he cries.
“So far as Mr. Vattel states the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section he states it correctly, but there are other questions on this subject, not noticed by him, which it would be well to state. These have reference to the following: “
“I. Children born of the subjects of one power in the territory of another. 2. Illegitimate children born of a foreign mother. 3. Foreign women who have married the subject of a State. Upon these points the doctrine in United States, is, 1, That children of foreigners born here are American citizens if they elect to declare themselves so, whilst the children of American citizens born abroad are themselves citizens of the United States, unless the 14th amendment has changed this doctrine, upon which there is a difference of opinion; 2, Illegitimate children belong to the State of which the mother was the subject; and 3, Except in the United States, the nationality of a wife is merged in that of her husband, so that in those countries, when a woman marries a foreigner she loses her own nationality and acquires his; but here a native woman marrying a foreigner remains the subject of the State, though an alien woman marrying a citizen of the United States becomes herself naturalized, unless she continue throughout her husband’s lifetime, a non-resident. Hall’s Inter. Law, secs. 68, 69, 70.”
And when you lie about A. P. Morse, the pain is like a knife through his heart..
“ 5. In the law of nations, “citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.”
“This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2″
And for footnote #2, he writes, ” 2. It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be “within the jurisdiction”‘].”
When Justice Scalia calls William Rawle a prominent lawyer who wrote an influential treatise on the Constitution, he is debunking your stupidity.
Your “kind” is anti-American, anti-Constitution.
Why does e.vattel appear to be so confused about Gilmore and Morse? I am sure someone must have pointed this out to him before?
Wouldn’t this White Power birther bigot have a better audience with Aryan Nation or Stormfront?
e.vattel is just confused about his own identity. Poor guy…
gorefan May 1, 2013 at 2:17 am (Quote) #
e.vattel: Y’all are forgetting Professor Gilmore when he wrote Vattel’s chapter 212 is in the Constitution.
Every time you lie about Professor Gilmore, he cries, he cries.
“So far as Mr. Vattel states the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section he states it correctly, but there are other questions on this subject, not noticed by him, which it would be well to state. These have reference to the following: “
Gorefan attempts to mislead the readers by omitting Professor Gilmore’s complete statement.
“Page 101 sec 212″….why did Gorefan fail to fully quote Professor Gilmore?: example…
“Page 101 sec 212″…”used in the Constitution of the United States”
Page 111 sec 241
Page 112 sec 244
http://archive.org/stream/notesacourselec00vattgoog#page/n73/mode/2up
Vattel and the Constitution.
e.vattel, you lost. It’s over, and has been for many years. Obama is your president, twice elected. Get a life. If you are having fun with getting responses, well, what ever rocks your boat. But you’re still a loser. No court, no sheriff, no congresscritter will ever will support your drivel.
Feed your dog. Be nice to your parents. Show up for work. There is life after being stupid on the internet.
Yes. And he was a foundling. He was an Egyptian, even rising to the level of advisor to Pharaoh.
That link explains your entire fantasy.
For those who can’t be bothered, paged 211 and 212 are blank except for a few photocopier artifacts. Conspiracy?
“Hey, look what I found.”
“He’s going to be a doctor, I tell you.”
e.v just isn’t real bright the quote that doesn’t help him is on page 55,
“Page 101—Sec. 212.—The word citizen is employed in law in different senses under different circumstances, but its ordinary signification is, a person owing allegiance to a government and entitled to protection from it, and it is in this sense that it is used in the Constitution of the United States. So far as Mr. Vattel states the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section he states it correctly, but there are other questions on this subject, not noticed by him, which it would be well to state. These have reference to the following: “
“I. Children born of the subjects of one power in the territory of another. 2. Illegitimate children born of a foreign mother. 3. Foreign women who have married the subject of a State. Upon these points the doctrine in United States, is, 1, That children of foreigners born here are American citizens if they elect to declare themselves so,”
BTW, I use googlebooks version of Professor Gilmore’s work “Notes of a course of lectures on Vattel’s Law of nations”.
http://books.google.com/books?jtp=55&id=f70MAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
He just made Professor Gilmore cry again.
212.
.
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.
Professor Gilmore stated 212 is used in the Constitution.
A Treatise on Citizenship by Alexander Porter Morse
“The natural-born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents.*
* Vattel, Droit des Gens, 1, i. c. six. sect. 212. Ed. Paris, 1863.
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870/cu31924020027870_djvu.txt
Yes, Morse and Collins were the most notorious writers arguing that we should have accepted jus soil. But their arguments were rejected in the Wong Kim Ark rulings.
Most legal and scholarly works as well as court rulings accepted jus soli, since Vattel was clear that a nation gets to chose its own rules for who is a natural-born citizen.
Certainly you are not accusing Vattel of being wrong here 🙂
Read Constitutional Law Professor Gilmore’s Vattel lecture. The professor breaks it down where Vattel is used in the United States Constitution.
Morse said this in his thesis:
“In the law of nations, ” citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.”
“This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2″
And in footnote 2: ”It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be ” within the jurisdiction”‘].”
Again you have stabbed A. P. Morse in the heart.
BTW: later in his treatise he says:
“The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them) ; it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”
See for A.P. Morse only natural (home-born) born citizens and naturalized (foreign-born) citizens. President Obama born in Hawaii is a “natural (home-born) born citizens” according to Mr. Morse.
BTW, this final quote from Mr. Morse is an unattributed quote from the Attorney General Bates 1862 opinion,
“The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”
http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=zo5EJE0sorgC&jtp=8
Read Justice Scalia’s statements on the Constitution and royal prerogative.
“It is apparent from all this that the traditional English understanding of executive power, or, to be more precise, royal prerogatives, was fairly well known to the founding generation, since they appear repeatedly in the text of the Constitution in formulations very similar to those found in Blackstone. It can further be argued that when those prerogatives were to be reallocated in whole or part to other branches of government, or were to be limited in some other way, the Constitution generally did so expressly.“
By not defining the meaning of “natural born Citizen”, the Framers did not “expressly” tell us that the term had been changed from the Common Law meaning.
in Miller v Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 1998
There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.
Justice Scalia, with Justice Thomas, argued that Congress has plenary power in the area of citizenship law, and that therefore courts lack the power to remedy the deprivation of citizenship.
Ouch
Birthers usually ignore questions that might embarrass themselves, so it’s no wonder that none of our birthers of late will provide a simple definition of “anchor baby.”
I guess birthers believe it’s a term pulled out of thin air.
Gilmore is a communist.
And shows where Vattel was wrong.
Nothing new here, even Vattel accepted that states can decided on their own who are their citizens and are not bound by some ‘international rule’. It just does not make sense, and even Vattel understood.
Shall I post where Vattel is used in the Constitution?
e.vattel: Shall I post where Vattel is used in the Constitution?
Non, ne te dérange pas!!!!!
Yawn… Still struggling with reality I notice but Vattel himself admitted that a sovereign nation can determine for itself who are its citizens. Citizenship is municipal not international law.
Was de Vattel a pedophile? We already know Vattel was a communist.
Let’s hear it from everyone.
I’m sure you’re going to claim that he was used on the part about congress and somehow claim that the part about congress was some secret hint to the presidency based on your misreading of a passage on citizenship in vattel. Yes Benjamin Franklin Gates lets hear it
Sure, I’ll do it for you:
“where Vattel is used in the Constitution?”
Posted.
Morse was a nativist. Time passed Morse by; nativist positions regarding birthright citizenship were rejected long ago.Times flows forward. Do keep up.
The blatant hypocrisy of being a nativist in America …. tsk, tsk. It’s all too human.
The thing is, according to Vattel, as I and others have explained & demonstrated ad nauseam here before, Obama would still be considered a naturel anyway, so what is your point????
And as I explained before, that means a single parent, NOT BOTH.
No one in 200+ years of legal scholarship, in France or abroad, has ever suggested the so-called “two parents” theory. No one.
According to the original Vattel text, that single parent was the father; then in the second edition [should be 1863 French edition. Doc.], the mother was added in the event the child was born out of wedlock, and then the “parens” (ie: relatives) if neither was present.
Eventually (much much later) this was changed to give the mother the same equal rights as the father.
Vattel also made privision for dual citizenship, ie a child being granted one citizenship according to jus soli in England, for example, and another through his “parens” (jus sanguinis) in another country.
France roughly followed the Vattel system (enshrined in the Napoleonic code) throughout the 19th and early 20th century and there is still no way that Obama would not have been considered a French citizen. The most fanous case taught in law school is that of Emile Zola born to an Italian father and a French mother.
In other words, your puzzling obssession on Vattel leads nowhere, certainly not to claiming thay Obama is somehow not a natural-born citizen. He clearly is, assuming you equate Vattel’s “naturel” with that term.
I don’t understand why you are so ignorant on a topic you rely on all the time.
“it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his delusions depend upon his not understanding it.”
Morse translated into English from a French language edition of Vattel. This site claims its impossible to get natural born and citizen parents from the French.
Morse did. But this site claims Morse is wrong in the translation.
You all are really outrageous in your claims.
Like I said earlier…the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and the Constitution do not apply to Obama.
He may have been born here but his natural Kind is Kenyan. He was born a Kenyan/British Subject. This disqualifies him being a citizen based on the subject to jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment.
Lets stop with the disinformation campaign. We’re correct.
There’s a big difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Neither apply to Obama.
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
By ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE (ALBANY LAW JOURNAL VOL. 66 (1904-1905
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342223/Morse-Natural-Born-Citizen-1904
Justice Daniels: Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:
“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 county, of parents who are citizens. as society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
Again: “I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.” (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)
Obama is a foreigner permitted to stay in this country. Looks like the same book Justice Scalia recently referenced. A copy of the 1797 edition.
Why do you keep quoting a communist and most likely, a pedophile?
McIlvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 6 US 280 – Supreme Court 1804
The court is referencing Book 1 C 19
The right is also asserted by the best writers on the laws of nature and nations. Vattel, b. 1, c. 19, 218, 223, 224, 225
“We’re” correct? Who would that be? You and your imaginary rabbit?
Vattel supported himself by performing abortions. Do you think he could support himself from writing all that drivel?
Vattel was a cross-dresser. He used to introduce himself as “Emilie de Vattel, countess of Canton.”
Kindly explain 200+ years of jurisprudence that says that you are wrong
There’s the mistake. Vattel wrote in Esperanto.
Still ignoring that Vattel accepts that each nation can decide for itself how are its citizens
You have a problem with facts do you not?
First and foremost you don’t understand Morse translation either,
The use of “citizen parents” is a group plural, as confirmed by what follows on the next lines in the same article, so your own ignorance is on display here.
Two, the terms indigene and naturel used by Vattel bear little relation to the term natural-born citizen, but even if you were to equate them, then Obama would be one because of his mother anfd relatves, just as Emile Zola was.
There are peecedenys, you iknow? I mean, in France, where Vattel’s citizenship principles were incorporated in Napoleon’s code. We don’t have to question, we know. We have case law.
So it’s not enough that you don’t understand Vattel you also don’t understand its translation.
Sorry, but there’s 200 years of Vattel scholarship available and no one ghas ever come up with your ludicrous misunderstanding.
Obama is a naturel; deal with it.
All these cases involve some issue of international law during the time our country transitioned from being under English rule to being under self rule.
Sigh…
Of course even Vattel admits that a country has the right to determine who are its natural born citizens.
But somehow you appear to be unwilling to accept this simple fact.
So when it comes to citizenship, International Law has little relevance as to whether or not someone is a citizen of a particular state.
Simple.
“This Court has time and again effectuated the clear understanding of the Framers, as embodied in the Constitution, by applying the law of nations to resolve cases and controversies”
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 US 398 – Supreme Court 1964
376 U.S. 398 (1964)
The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
“But our right is built on ground still broader, more unquestionable, to wit,. On the law of Nature & Nations. If we appeal to this, as we feel it written in the heart of man, what sentiment is written in deeper characters, than that the Ocean is free to all men, & the Rivers to all their inhabitants? ”
Our right to participate in the navigation of that part of the river also, is to be considered under The law of Nature and Nations.
[Vattel. L. 3. 122.]
Vattel L. 3. 197. 198.
Vattel. L. 1. . 292. L. 2. . 123 to 139.
Vattel L. 2, . 129
Jefferson to Washington
http://jeffersonswest.unl.edu/archive/view_doc.php?id=jef.00105
The delusional troll has its needle stuck on stupid.
And it keeps leaving little crap piles on the rug.
This should clear things up.
Vattel died of syphilis.
All this is totally irrelevant; you’re being autistic.
If you want to play the Vattel game (as inapplicable as it is) the question before us is: If Barack Obama had been born in Switzerland from a vistiing British student and a local Swiss mother, would he have been considered a naturel or indigene?
There are various scenarios depending on the parents’ marital status, when you set up the question (before of after 1804), and in some cases some paperwork might have been in order, but all scenarios lead to the same place: in EVERY INSTANCE the answer is: yes. Barack Obama is a Swiss naturel or indigene.
What I’m saying is neither debatable nor controversial: I’ve got 200 years of jurisprusdence backing me up. I challenge you to find a case or a scholarly opinion that shows the opposite.
This is of course totally irrelevant to BHO in the U S of A in the 21st century, but it’s just to show you you’re completely and utterly wrong.
And this is relevant because? No one here says that Vattel was not a useful reference on international relations.
We are saying he has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion on citizenship in the United States, and that what Vattel actually said is not what you say he said.
Citizenship in the United States is not a matter of international relations, it is a matter of domestic relations.
This does not make sense. If President Obama was subject to our jurisdiction at the time of his birth, he would be, like Wong Kim Ark, a natural born citizen.
You still have not read US v WKA I presume
Nope, he concluded that if the parents are resident or domiciled, they are surely subject to our jurisdiction but we know that even a temporary sojourn was ruled to be sufficient for natural born citizenship.
I find it fascinating how you so easily ignore the rationale used to proclaim Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. It required two things:
1. Birth on soil
2. Subject to jurisdiction – Meaning subject to our laws which clearly includes even those sojourning or traveling through our country.
Sorry my friend, I understand your dislike of our Constitution but the facts remain that the Courts have been quite consistent in their rulings. For instance, it was observed that children born to illegal aliens are still born subject to our jurisdiction.
It’s so simple…
This dicta was clearly rejected in US v WKA. Sorry my friend but you are not making much sense here. You do realize that Courts do not make rulings in dicta?…
The court in US v Wong Kim Ark explains
Sorry my friend… Again you fail to show any relevance to our Constitution.
Where appropriate, indeed law of nations is to be used. But even Vattel admitted that a nation has the right to decide for itself who are its natural born citizens.
Are you now doubting Vattel himself?
And you should really read the decision rather than quote mining it blindly… The Court explains its rationale. In case of President Obama, there is no reason to look for international law.
Jefferson used Vattel as justification for Western exploration and expansion. Read Jefferson’s to Washington.
Now R.C. Laity’s shown up over at the Burlington Free Press article. He’s come up with this gem:
“BCP (that would be short for Black Cat Press, who we know here by another name, and who would be quite surprised to learn that…) Vattel translated the Law of Nations into French. He did not write it. You say “No French scholar in 200+ yrs…” Fact is that our Constitution was written MORE than 200 years ago. The Law of Nation says that a persons heritage comes from the Father and that a “Natural-Born Citizen” is “One born in a country with ParentS…”{Plural} “…who are citizens”. The USA was created in 1776. It was a NEW Nation. It is a fact that The Law of Nations,brought here by the Ambassador to France,Benjamin Franklin,was in ubiquitous usage in BOTH the English and US Courts in the 18th Century. The Law of Nations is incorporated,by reference to it IN OUR Constitution at Article 1,Sec.8.
We HAVE Idigenes or Native Americans living here and we HAVE Naturels-nes or “Nartural-Born” Americans. The fact is that the US has “used the writings” of Vattel to define what a “Natural-Born American” is. That is NOT a “Misuse” of Vattel’s translation. The USA as a NEW nation at the time used it as it’s guide and incorporated it into OUR Law.”
And he’s got a little bit of a mad on at our buddy Brooksie.
Again an issue for international law.
But everyone knows that even Vattel accepted that any nation could decide for itself who are its natural born citizens.
From WKA we know that they follow the Common Law of England here.
Yes even vattel accepted this. Of course e.vattel refuses to acknowledge these facts.
Poor e.vattel… Does he not know that these Vattel arguments were argued in Wong Kim Ark and rejected by both courts?
Boy oh boy… The court was presented with Vattel and rejected it because it was in conflict with the US tradition.