http://acandidworld.com/2009/03/13/turnabout-is-obama-denialist-orly-taitz-really-a-lawyer-will-she-be-for-long/

This should serve to illustrate, in some small measure, the reprehensible nature of the tactics employed by the enemies of the United States Constitution; those poised & ready to work at undermining the foundational planks that support our republican way of life—
Title of the Article:
“Turnabout: Is Obama Denialist Orly Taitz Really a Lawyer? Will She Be For Long?”
March 13, 2009, 6:58 am
Filed under: Author – ACG, Politics | Tags: Culture wars, Jerks, Law, Obama denialism, Orly Taitz

“naturalborncitizen” writes: The Author of this hatchet job/piece begins:

I don’t like to talk about the “Birthers.” They don’t deserve serious treatment, except the occasional concise or snarky explanation of why they’re wrong, both of which are done better elsewhere, at a friend’s site. Besides, debating them extensively just makes me feel like I’m lowering myself to their level. So please forgive this momentary diversion, a last glance …..
“naturalbornsubject” states:
The following are a select number of the posts* I made to the commentary section on this article as; “tim” or “timbo” –primarily to counter the myriad distortions, disinformation & outright/bald-faced lies that were being promulgated on this page The sight was crawling with an assortment of despicable obfuscating- obscurantist- “Obots” aka “The Deceitful One’s” blindly compliant disciples. The depths of depravity to which they were/are capable of stooping seem to know no bounds:
One of my early replies to an individual who was determined to advance the common mis-perception that B.O. Jr had furnished a copy of what any reasonable person would recognize as a legitimate, irrefutable, record of his birth in an institutional setting, ie hospital will start things “rolling”–
These snippets are just to give you a little bit of the flavor , tone of the discourse such as it existed They are a mere Hors d’œuvre, precursor to the main-course which shall be served up with….well…you’ll see. Hint: Keep an eye out for mention of the name; John Bingham—

“You are wrong in every respect i haven’t the time to go over it all now do your homework you are woefully ignorant
your very last statement says it all
we have not had any past President(excepting Chester Arthur who pulled off this scam back in the 1880′s) whose parents were “citizens from other countries” There have been a couple of Presidents who had IMMIGRANT parents. Those parents became full-fledged citizens of the U.S. pledging allegiance to this country and renouncing all others before they went on to have their child who would grow up to become Pres.
BO Sr WAS NOT AN IMMIGRANT TO THE U.S. He was a visitor on a gov’t student visa , merely a sojourner not even permanently domiciled here. If he were alive today he could very well be sitting at the helm of a foreign sovereignty
The “birth cert” is a distraction from the real issue, although I would still like to see the long-form , hospital generated version- doc’s sig witness(s) sig- all other rel vital data
Comment by tim November 13, 2009 @ 6:11 am
Reply

“This is verbatim what you wrote:’Barack Obama Jr is not a british citizen as defined by UK citizenship law since he was born after his father’s country gained indepedance and even if before according to UK citizenship laws he still wouldn’t be eligible for UK citizenship.’
My reply: This is absolute falsehood You really need to check the facts NOT “factcheck.org”
btw– they have already admitted publishing untruths regarding B.O. Jr’s Kenyan citizenship”
Comment by tim November 13, 2009 @ 6:18 am
Reply

Yes, you may be an American citizen just as well as B.O. Jr may be but the requirement for President is natural born citizen. The soil & THE BLOOD . NO FOREIGN ATTACHMENT IN THECHIEF EXECUTIVE
NATURAL LAW- HEREDITARY RIGHT, NOT ONLY TERRITORIAL- MOTHER’S U.S. CIT STATUS DOES NOT VOID BO JR’s British citizenship which he has openly admitted serves as the steersman
Comment by tim November 13, 2009 @ 5:49 am
Reply

Dead wrong he has never admitted it and actual US law doesn’t prevent dual citizens even if they still have the status from serving as President.

Several supreme court cases have testifed as such.
Comment by idioteraser November 13, 2009 @ 6:23 am
Reply
You’re the one playing the race card and talking about “scary places” What has any of that to do with “natural born citizen”?! — a path to citizenship that can only be taken through 2 citizen parents or 1 , if the other is unknown. Natural born citizenship is inherited NOT acquired. Dual citizenship may be “all the rage” but it simply won’t do for Pres. & Commander-in-Chief
Why do you wish to deny BO Jr his full citizenship rights?
Comment by tim November 13, 2009 @ 5:57 am
Reply
again it’s amateur magician time
all the mis -direction & deflection in the world will not obscure the facts
what do i have on ‘my side’?–only the truth and history
you can run from it but eventually it will catch up with US. Unless some officials at the highest levels are withholding information regarding BOII’s paternity that would contradict the known “facts” then I must accept the family narrative as it has been related . That being the case, there isn’t anything to debate the Founding Fathers didn’t stumble upon the term “natural-born” It identifies a very specific class of citizenship for holders of the highest office in the land Chet Arthur’s ruse does not set precedent for BO
Read the Framers’ correspondence/letters ,notes and all the notes for the relevant case history(14th Amend-Kim Wok Ark etc) if you are having trouble fathoming original intent
Comment by tim March 15, 2009 @ 2:42 am
Reply

Why are you birthers incapable of writing a complete sentence with attached punctuation?

Don’t you know it makes you look like a breathless idiot?
Comment by Corey Carroll July 16, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
Reply
NOTE- Another enters the fray
“birthers”? so that’s your attempt at ridicule? this all smells: attack the messenger, no meat on the actual accusations, etc.

all this and you Obamacrats cannot aswer the very simple question: Where’s the damn Birth Certificate?!?
Comment by b sheppard July 19, 2009 @ 8:47 am
Reply

so…now, something called “factcheck” is the ultimate authority in matters of such gravity. ? You’ve just impugned your own integrity with this foolish reference
Comment by tim September 10, 2009 @ 1:38 am
Reply

No level of proof will ever satisfy delusional individuals such as yourself. Provide an image of the birth certificate, and you say it’s a fake because there is no seal. Provide an image of the seal, and you say it’s still a fake. Provide the birth certificate to a presumeably disinterested third party for comparison and review, and suddenly they’re conspirators.

The more you write, the more unreasonable your scenario becomes.
Comment by scott September 22, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
Reply

What are you talking about ; “no level of proof” The man himself has already furnished sufficient proof and I am willing to take him at his word. He (BO Jr) has publicly claimed ,NON-IMMIGRANT, FOREIGNER TO THE U.S., B.Obama Sr as his biological father. What more “proof” do you need? from Aristotle to Vattel to the Founders/Framers CITIZEN PARENTS BOTH!!!! NO FOREIGN ATTACHMENT IN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE HOLDER. PERIOD!
Comment by tim November 13, 2009 @ 6:26 am
Reply

If you want to understand what “the Founders” meant, you need to read Blackstone’s Commentaries. “Aristotle to Vattel” are not common law tradition.

AND MIND YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE, MATE!!! YOU COULD GET AN ANEURYSM WORKING YOURSELF UP LIKE THAT!!!
Comment by lanfranc November 13, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Reply

You are an obsurantist
read your beloved “Blackstone” again, this time, carefully.
Come on , dude Be honest with yourself You damned well
there isn’t one true Founder that would approve having the biological off-spring of a “pledged” foreigner, non-immigrant to the U.S. as POTUS/Commander-in-Chief
Comment by tim November 14, 2009 @ 3:31 am
Reply

Blackstone, Book 1, ch. 10:

“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England…”

And later:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
Comment by lanfranc November 14, 2009 @ 7:46 am
Reply

‘subject’ is NOT a ‘citizen’
Remember that little skirmish called “The American Revolution”?
Comment by tim May 15, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

Tim! Long time, no see.

You are of course correct (and that’s one thing I thought I’d never write). Subjects and citizens are not precisely the same thing. However, lawyers (and others) have this little thing called an ‘argument by analogy’, in which they deduce a rule from one existing case to a new, similar one.

If I thought you’d A) read and B) understand them, I could refer you to some sources on the influence of Blackstone on the framing of the Constitution, but frankly, I can’t be arsed.
Comment by lanfranc May 15, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

I do have ample documentary proof – here and elsewhere online – of piss-poor “birther” orthography and/or ham-handed typing (are birthers actually a burgeoning race of typing monkeys, such as G.B. Shaw imagined writing “Hamlet”?). And how about the grammar–when fiery thoughts of the imminent Obamapocalypse consume these people, their studies in English for the G.E.D. are forgotten…
Comment by GregL August 4, 2009 @ 2:13 pm

to “ACG”
listen to yourself—-”people like you” and “your type” what are you talking about? people like me and my type
you also talk about “losing”
we all LOSE if in this Constitutional republic of ours the rule of law is not upheld
we are not living in a pure democracy and you would take the time to read the actual word of the Founders and those of their ilk that followed you would appreciate that the “mob rule ” mentality is what they fought so hard to prevent from taking hold
“people like (me)” and “(my)type” , indeed.
Comment by tim March 15, 2009 @ 2:55 am
Reply

Say it loud, say it proud.

YOU ARE A RACIST!!!

YOU JUST CAN’T STAND A BLACK MAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

*spit*

Hawkeye-X
Comment by Hawkeye-X July 23, 2009 @ 3:08 am
Reply
really? last time I checked Alan Keyes was black and unlike BO, truly can claim “Selma”
Comment by tim August 7, 2009 @ 12:00 am
Reply

a “black man for president” or woman for that matter, is fine. just have them be natural born citizens like all other successful candidates for the office have been(excepting the scammer Chester Arthur) Since you injected race , here, why the affirmative action program for BO? why the free pass? Why not judge him according to the same standard you would any other candidate for POTUS ? The Framers/Founders intent with
ARTICLE II SEC1 CL 5 was to close off all avenues to foreign influence at the highest of levels. The executive branch and Command in Chief of U.S. Armed forces is off limits to the children of foreigners ..of any stripe be they the off-spring of Kim Jung Il or Mother Teresa. BO Sr died prematurely but this does not give his son a free pass. Had he lived SR. could very well be sitting at the helm of a foreign sovereignty, today . Think that wouldn’t present a conflict for Jr currently occupying the WhiteHouse ? Come on folks, let’s get real
Comment by tim September 10, 2009 @ 1:51 am
Reply

Wait until the next President is the child of Mexican immigrants. I guess you will really go bonkers then. Shouldn’t you be meantioning those 39 Obama social security numbers claimed by your leader. At least the Obama is an alien group are funny.
Comment by clydedog October 24, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Reply

HOW MANY TIMES MUST YOU BE TOLD? BO Jr’s FATHER WAS NOT AN IMMIGRANT! HAVE YOU THE INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT OF A TURNIP? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT HAS A CHILD OF “MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS” TO DO WITH ANYTHING? AS LONG AS THEY HAVE BECOME U.S. CITIZENS THEN THE CHILDREN THEY MAY GO ON TO HAVE WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. THEIR OFF-SPRING WILL INHERIT THEIR NEWLY ACQUIRED U.S. CITIZENSHIP,ONLY.– SUCCESSFULLY SEVERING THE FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE

FYI MEXICAN IS NOT A RACE BTW IT IS A NATIONALITY IF YOU MEANT TO REFER TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE AMERICAS WELL THEN SAME RULES APPLY
SEE ABOVE
Comment by tim November 13, 2009 @ 6:39 am
Reply

Tim, you need to seek help. That is crazy talk, really. Please run, don’t walk, to the nearest hospital and admit yourself.

You lost and you’ve become undone. Maybe in the future you will be able to look back at this period of your life and realize how far off the deep end you’ve gone. But right now is the time for you to get help.

Please, before you end up doing something really drastic.

Ken
Comment by ken March 15, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Reply

Tim -

Why is it that no-one ever finds a coherent birther? I’ve honestly never seen one of your ilk submit a comment on this site, or any site, that wasn’t riddled with typos or grammar errors. The same goes for your organizers – Taitz, Donofrio, etc., they’re no better.

Now. The framer’s original letters naturally wouldn’t speak to the issue of double citizenship, because double citizenship didn’t exist in 1789! As for the rest of your arguments, please read this and get back to me.
Comment by ACG March 15, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Reply

There are none.
Comment by clydedog October 24, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Reply

Cymraeg ,, no lawyer would say what you just did.
The only people who are in denial are you guys..
Comment by tinkerthinker March 15, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Reply

BTW,, Roberts didn’t blow her off! He agreed to read her case and directed his secret service guy to take the papers. Why do you liberals always have to lie?
Comment by tinkerthinker March 15, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Reply

ACG wrote:
“…Now. The framer’s original letters naturally wouldn’t speak to the issue of double citizenship, because double citizenship didn’t exist in 1789!..”

exactly why BO II status is not that of a natural born U.S. citizen. He was, by his own admission, a born British subject His ‘status governed by ‘ the Crown.
Comment by timbo March 16, 2009 @ 5:01 am
Reply

Excuse me, but when, in what speech or press release or book, did Mr. Obama admit he is a born British subject? Title, page or line number please.
Comment by Philip H. March 16, 2009 @ 7:55 am
Reply

MORE OBSCURANTIST NONSENSE
NATURAL BORN SUBJECT IS NOT = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
now the real WONG KIM ARK
U.S. v Wong Kim Ark:

‘ The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistably lead us to these conclusions—–
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here…if he hath issue here…his child is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen..’
The court is comparing the NATIVE -born child of an ALIEN to the “NATURAL BORN” child of a citizen.
Clearly delineating, drawing a distinction between the two in recognizing their individuality. Once again for the Obots and the impaired*: “..is as much a citizen AS ..”

A NOTE: Justice Gray was appointed to the High Court by Usurper, Chester Arthur

*isn’t this a redundancy?
Comment by tim November 14, 2009 @ 3:39 am
Reply

Philip H wrote:
“Excuse me, but when, in what speech or press release or book, did Mr. Obama admit he is a born British subject? Title, page or line number please.”
Release from the BO Camp via”Fight the Smears” :
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Comment by Tim March 18, 2009 @ 5:57 am
Reply

Oh Tim, do you know EXACTLY what that makes him?

A British-American citizen!

That’s right, clutch your heart!
Comment by Hawkeye-X July 23, 2009 @ 3:12 am
Reply

exactly! thus, ineligible for Pres /Commander-in-Chief
read what all of the Framers/Founders had to say about dual-citizenship
Comment by tim August 7, 2009 @ 12:03 am
Reply

Remind me again why we are applying British law to American jurisprudence? American courts would not. British law would not apply anywhere but in Britain. It’s moot in this discussion.
Comment by tommystoic September 18, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Reply

WE’RE NOT . WE ARE APPLYING AMERICAN LAW ; THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE II SEC 1 CLAUSE 5
NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE FRAMERS OF THE LAW
NOT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND UNLESS YOU’VE SOME AGENDA OTHER THAN SEEING IT UPHELD
Comment by tim November 13, 2009 @ 6:46 am
Reply
*****WARNING****HERE IT COMES*******————->
To all the 14th Amend spouters:
It may be time to cue the legendary John Bingham Representative of Ohio & “Father of the Fourteenth Amendment”—quote:

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]“
Comment by Tim March 18, 2009 @ 6:09 am

To Tim:
A comment by a single member of the House of Representatives as to his understanding of the meaning of “Natural-born Citizen” is not stare decisis and is not in any way binding on the Supreme Court. The Court is the body that interprets the Constitution, not whomever.

Analyzing the stawtement logically you seem to be drawing the following conclusion

If A then B
therefore
If not A then not B. (This is a false logical conclusion.)

Bingham’s statement ” that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” does not logically lead to the conclusion that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is not a natural born citizen.
Comment by Cymraeg March 18, 2009 @ 9:53 am
Reply

Furthermore, I have my doubts as to the veracity of that quote. It comes from the Wikipedia article on John Bingham, but the supporting source doesn’t contain the quote.

Furthermore, the quote was added recently to the WP article, by a guy who is most certainly a Birther, and therefore biased, and who pushes the disproven birther interp. of Wong Kim Ark.

Sorry buddy. Show me legislative history that has that quote – NOT a Wikipedia article that you or your friends edited to say that.
Comment by ACG March 18, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Reply

Cymraeg, you’re not going to believe this: Bingham DID say something about who is a “natural born citizen.” However, the quote, and the meaning of it, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Tim’s saying!

As John Bingham explained, “I find no fault with the introductory clause [of the Act], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States [is] … a natural born citizen.” Id. at 1291

Rebecca E. Zietlow, “Congressional Enforcement of the Rights of Citizenship,” 56 Drake L. Rev. 1015, 1027 n.59 (2008).

I can’t find the source she cites on Lexis, but there you have it: another purposeful, 180 degree Birther lie.
Comment by ACG March 18, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Reply

To ACG:

Thanks. This does not suprise me. The birthers are constantl;y and intentionally misquoting case law, statutes, and whatever else is detrimental to them.
Comment by Cymraeg March 18, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Reply

I recited Bingham’s words ;quoting directly the written text from the Library of Congress’ copy of the “Congressional Globe” which provided this account of the 39th Congress’ 1st session dated 03/09/1866 It appears precisely as I have stated in my initial response, above.(not “ACG’s” abridged version)
You know,folks, all of this “gotcha” & “one-upsmanship” is really silly. I made a few citations and provided a quote or two because I thought it might be helpful to some but I have never had to resort to such measures. As a 12 yr old, years ago, I needed nothing more than to read the Constitutional Clause itself ( Art II Sec 1 ) in order to very quickly conclude that a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. is one born of citizen parents(naturalized or natural born)and on the soil. jus sanguinis , jus soli. the tip off, logically speaking; ‘or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution’ There was no disagreement over the “definition” of “natural born citizen” among my fellow students most debate centered around whether or not it was fair or still relevant. All agreed that if one did not like it then one should pursue the proposal and passage of a Constitutional Amendment The only legal “remedy” available. Seeking to obscure the meaning of the eligibility req and therefore circumvent the law is not fix. and as i have hinting earlier; does us all a great disservice
Comment by Tim March 19, 2009 @ 9:14 am
Reply
Of course the birfers have no cogent argument for the presidency of Chester Arthur, whose Irish-born father was not naturalized until he was a teenager:

Naturalization Certificate of William Arthur, 1843

It is especially interesting to note that while Arthur’s eligibility to serve as VP (and thus President) was challenged on the basis of an untrue accusation that he was born in Ireland, no one chose to challenge his eligibility on the fact of his father’s non-citizen status at the time of his birth.
Comment by Zuzu March 20, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
Reply

The American public was in the dark regarding Chester Arthur’s father’s status. Read the publications of the day and this fact will become abundantly clear to even the most hardened Obscurantist . Obot , if you like
Comment by tim November 14, 2009 @ 3:55 am
Reply

In the eyes of the properly educated or pure and non-corrupted thinker they “unanimously certified” their terrifyingly disturbing level of ignorance.
Comment by tim November 14, 2009 @ 4:00 am
Reply

to “Dr Con”
I can’t speak for all those of whom you speak; pre “certification of live birth posting”people. I can tell you that there is no conspiracy or urban legend as you prefer to call it ; among those of us who have always well understood the Pres eligibility requirement. However, the fact that there are some who confuse the terms native born* and natural born*, whether they dwell among us today or lived 100 yrs+ ago, does not alter the meaning. The birth certificate and a possible foreign birth is the “sexier” issue it is easier for most to grasp or more convenient to apprehend/ grab a hold of . Arthur Hinman ran with it back in old Chet Arthur’s day and the Phil Berg’s of the world are trumpeting it today ;much to the delight, I imagine, of both individuals at the center of the storm. It is a welcome distraction from the real issue and that is a far less’ sexy’ more sedate accounting. There is nothing “anti-immigrant” about better(no guarantees, mind you) insuring loyalty for the very top position in one’s country.
Again, if you don’t care for it–there is a prescribed method for change and that is an Amendment not complete disregard for the law and the will of the Framers- our Founding Fathers -this was to best provide for the avoidance of competing allegiances and divided loyalties. Mr.Obama’s father was NOT an immigrant. He was a visitor who remained in the country only for so long a period as was commensurate with his studies. He then returned to his native land…forever.(one brief visit to US when his son was 12) He could , had he so desired and was successful in a bid , have become President of Kenya and we would now be dealing with the very situation that the natural born clause is designed to preclude for taking place; The Head of a foreign sovereignty reigning while their natural off-spring sits at the helm of another nation and in command of its armed forces.

*native born=born in the country
natural born=far more expansive; includes hereditary right
the key is– status- at -birth . it is a fixed condition and remains with you for so long as you shall live unless you’ve come up with some way to go back in time to “unfix” things
Comment by Tim March 23, 2009 @ 6:22 am
Reply

Just the Facts:
1. Obama was elected president of the United States of America.
2. He will serve in that capacity until January 20, 2013.
3. There is not a thing Birfers can do to change this, no matter how hard they try.
4. End of Story
Comment by DadBode April 3, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Reply

and are we to glean from this…..that you are proud of being duped?
Comment by tim September 10, 2009 @ 2:53 am
Reply
“natural bornsubject”-notes: This particular post of mine;[as"tim"] below- was in response to lengthy entries preceding it; lodged by persons who brought to bear grotesque perversions, among other things, of the meaning of and intent behind the passage of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court decision/holding in the Wong Kim Ark case , their abject failure to view with perspective or place into proper context- either action- is the pretext for my answer:

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS OBSCURANTIST GARBAGE
FOR ONE, THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS NOT THE COMMON LAW OF THE U.S. AND EVEN IF IT WERE; WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE? THE ONE WHERE THE PARENTAL OBEDIENCE WAS A FEATURE OF “NATURAL BORN SUBJECT” OR THE ONE WITHOUT IT? THE LATTER, IF EFFECT WHEN WE DECIDED TO GO TO WAR WITH THE MONARCHY(GB) IN 1812 OVER ITS NOTIONS OF NATURAL BORN IE PERPETUAL ALLEGIANCE ETC

NOW, CUE THE LEGEND-

Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824:

“It(Our Revolution)….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…”

Emmerich de Vattel’s contemporaneous “Le Droit des Gens”/The Right(s)of People/ human nature/ our kind/genus “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature- Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns”
Comment by tim December 6, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Reply

THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF NATIONS AND THE LAW OF NATIONS IS NATURAL LAW
Comment by tim December 6, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Reply

Oh look it found a book! Adorable!!!
Comment by ACG December 6, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
Reply

I wouldn’t give him that much credit. Probably found it on the Internet.
Comment by lanfranc December 6, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Reply

Now if only he could find a working caps lock key.
Comment by oneiroi December 6, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Reply

Man can dream, Oneiroi. Man can dream.
Comment by ACG December 6, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Reply

JOHN ADAMS, future delegate to the Continental Congress & second President of the United States, after having spent the day frivolously, instead of reading & thinking, records in his Diary on Feb.1,1763 “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.”

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN- (signatory U.S. Constitution) His letter to Charles W.F. Dumas(1), Dec 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. (It) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting…”

JAMES DUANE, Mayor & Chief Judge of New York City, influential member of the Continental Congress & mentor to Alexander Hamilton August 1784:
“THE GREAT VATTEL’s WORK(‘perspicacious & elegant’).. IS ENTITLED TO THE HIGHEST ADMIRATION!”

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, throughout his career & life quoted, at length, from Vattel & described him as; “the most systematic of writers on the law of nations.”

GEORGE WASHINGTON, in 1794, in rare agreement with both Jefferson & Hamilton, defends his Neutrality Proclamation- using Vattel’s Law of Nations, he frustrates Ambassador of France Citizen Edmond-Charles Genêt who writes to the nation’s 1st President; “you bring forward aphorisms* of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.”
*truism, adage, maxim

Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796)
Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States “were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
Chief Justice JOHN MARSHALL:
“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

THOMAS JEFFERSON to J.Cartwright 1824:
“It(Our Revolution)….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…”

Posted using ShareThis

St. George Tucker Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia:

“The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.”

Are you aware of an applicable contemporaneous definition of “hereditary right” which does not include patrilineal descent

Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824

It(Our Revolution)….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…

“On every question of construction[of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”
Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823-letter to Judge William Johnson

The ’spirit’ What was the Revolution all about? What was it that WE found so “revolting” in the customs and practices of OUR ancestry; the entrenched monarchies and the despotism of the Lands we left behind?