Our coverage of last Thursday’s hearing has received an extreme amount of traffic and a multitude of comments. Within those comments are a good number from Obama voters and within many of them is a complete disregard for the Constitution.
We don’t know for sure, but one can suppose, they are products of the liberal education and indoctrination system where the Constitution either isn’t taught or parsed to fit a certain agenda and ideology.
We can’t begin to tell you how many, in those comments, have the impression that, “If he was born in the United States, he’s a citizen and can be the President.”
Put your hands in the air and step away from the Kool Aid!!!
Here is where we begin.
As the founders set up a new nation, one that was removing itself from tyrannical rule, it’s hard to believe they would adopt, lock stock and barrel, all the rules of law they were leaving behind. It’s also clear that the framers of the constitution, in a new nation, were clearly aware of the dangers of overthrow from within. For this reason, it seems the framers would have taken direct steps to be sure whoever would be elected to lead, would have allegiance to, and only to, the United States.
To accomplish this, the tern “Natural Born Citizen” was made the rule of eligibility. The European definition was simple, that one born on the soil of a country was it’s natural born citizen. That was part of from what the framers were trying to distance themselves and their new nation. A new definition and one which would provide more security against foreign allegiance would have been necessary.
The term, “Natural Born Citizen” is found in our Constitution and is commonly referred to as “The Eligibility Clause.” It can be discovered in Article II Section 5 Clause 5 of that great document. It states, as follows:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Notice to liberals…It does NOT say “Citizen” it says clearly and distinctly, “Natural Born Citizen” so…the constitution…Learn it, Love it and Understand it.
By the way, as we have pointed out before, the part that says, “or a citizen of the United States,” is followed by, “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” therefore, as the constitution was ratified in 1788, for Obama to be eligible under THAT clause, he would have had to have been a U.S. Citizen in…1788.
Okay then, how does the Constitution define a Natural Born Citizen?
So then, what’s the difference between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen?
To discover the answer to that, we have to do a little looking but clearly, the framers believed there to be a difference or they would not have included the words, “Natural Born Citizen,” in our constitution.
To understand the term, we turn to Emerich de Vattel.
Vattel was the author of “ Law of Nations” back on 1758 which by the time of American Independence had become a wildly popular read. It was a blueprint of sorts for the way laws and should be handled and sovereign nations should behave.
How widely was it known back then? Well, it was used repeatedly in court cases by people such as… Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall, John Quincy Adams and many more important and notable people of that time.
Those most often associated with the writing of the Constitution are, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine and the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.
As it is widely known that Jefferson referred to the “Law of Nations” while writing the Declaration of Independence, that the Continental Congress met regularly in a library which had a copy of the “Law of Nations, that Franklin had his own copy of the “Law of Nations and that so many of those considered to be our founding fathers cited the “Law of Nations” in court..
It doesn’t take a great deal of thought to realize that the Framers of the Constitution would also refer to the book by Vattel as they wrote the Constitution.
In the “Law of Nations” one will find the following:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
In this sentence, Vattel uses “parents” plural. This will be important. Remember this.
Vattel continues, “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.”
Here, Vattel tells us that children naturally follow the birthright of their father. Again…IMPORTANT.
He goes on…”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.”
Here again, Vattel makes it clear that the preservation of nationality, what he refers to as “society” is accomplished by the birthright passing down from the FATHER. He shows that children become members of the society, the nation, of the father.
“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.”
Remember and remember well this entire passage as we apply it to Obama and the Georgia court hearing challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in that state and the bigger challenge that he is indeed ineligible to serve as President.
The Constitution tell us, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
In the Georgia court hearing last Thursday, the plaintiffs, as part of their unchallenged case, entered into the record, Minor vs Happersett, 1875. In the written opinion from that case we find the following:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
There it is again…Parents…plural…Just as it is found in “The Law of Nations…The blueprint for the Constitution.
Many liberals are trying to use the next part of Minor vs Happersett to negate this as it says: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
To understand this we have to break into 3 parts the types of citizens mentioned in MvH as follows. 1) “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”; 2) “aliens or foreigners”; and 3) “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.
In doing this it is clear that the United States Supreme Court in Minor vs Happersett is telling us that of the first two, “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” Parents, plural i.e. natural born citizens) and “aliens or foreigners” there can be no doubt. However, as to the third, “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” there IS some doubt but for the purpose of the case, it was not necessary to resolve those doubts.
Friends, the doubts they didn’t need to solve at that time were NOT doubts as to what the framers meant by “Natural Born Citizens.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
It has nothing whatsoever to do with “Natural Born Citizen” and establishes that a child, born on U.S. soil, of a parent who is not a U.S. citizen is considered a citizen…a CITIZEN…but not a natural born citizen.
The Constitution does not define “Natural Born Citizen but its blueprint, Vattel’s “Law of Nations” does and the United States Supreme Court via Minor vs Happersett affirms that meaning as a child, born in a country whose parents (plural) were citizens of that country.
Now then, for those liberals who will no doubt question all of this. A little more research shows the following.
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The letter was sent to Washington on July 25th 1787. Washington, at the time, was the President of the Constitutional Convention and in the original draft, the eligibility clause stated only that a President be a citizen.
John Jay was to become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and it is widely believed, as he referred often to it, that he had his own copy of the “Law of Nations.”
By September of 1787, the finished draft of our Constitution had been signed by 39 of the 55 delegates and within it was the term, “Natural Born Citizen.”
As to the intent of the framers, via the blueprint provided by the “Law of Nations” and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Minor va Happersett, Obama is not a natural born citizen as Obama’s father was never a United States Citizen and therefore, should not be eligible to serve as President of the United States.