Thursday, 22 December 2016

More Clarity...

...On A Subject Of Some Interest
                  To Some

from ‘Vattel’s Influence on tho term a Natural Born Citizen’ -
(“What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth…”)


“… If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen,* then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there [sic] arguments are that the Law of Nations is a[n] obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention [is] that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses [its use] consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not.

The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.

For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ 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. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.

Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution” Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)

In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Gent to honor their treaty and support France’s wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel’s Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Gent wrote to Washington, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.

At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.”

The reference to “Jay’s letter to Washington” I have referred to before in these pages.  If you are interested, go to the source of this excerpt; or to that subject directly.  (The letter in question was dated July 25, 1787 - while Washington was acting as Chair/President of the Constitutional Convention proceedings.) 

I’m not going to do all your homework for you  If this nation means anything to you at all, you will start doing your own homework in this regard.

* who refers in his ’Commentary’ to natural born SUBJECTS - not ‘citizens’.  There is a difference - and ESPECIALLY there was to these new-nation citizens, who were no longer the subjects of the king of a country that they had just fought a long and bloody War of Independence to come out from under the yoke of.


…And here is a good example of what the great American experiment in self-governance has come down to:

from ‘On Video: O’Keefe Exposes Voter Fraud’ - Adam Campbell - December 22
1. “This new scheme uncovered by O’Keefe [of Project Veritas fame] involves the oversight of voting where in many states, a bi-partisan panel of judges are supposed to be present in voting precincts to oversee the vote.  An equal number of Republican and Democrat judges are supposed to ensure a fair and legal election.  But in Chicago, a town run by Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel, Democrats were hired to pose as Republican judges…”

2. No Russians need apply.

kibitzer3 a few seconds ago (December 22)

Thanks for the report, Adam, and helping the PV team get their message out.

This is terrible, terrible stuff. Banana republic stuff. And worse: At least in many of them, voters have a finger dipped in purple dye, to keep them from voting more than once. That cuts down on the corruption some. Here, we just allow the criminals to do their thing, unchecked. I am so angry, I am hurting my health. I would like to see the whole lot of them thrown in prison. In every state. Every type of electoral malfeasance. OUT OF MY COUNTRY.


Another scam going on:

Throughout 2016, O’Keefe exposed unusual and extraordinary schemes that would assist democrats in garnering more, albeit illegal, votes.

“Some of these methods devised by Democratic operates [sic; operatives] were ingenious, such as their door knocking program to find registered voters who had moved . . . and therefore could be used by their “bussed in” voters to gain more votes...”

And then there's the millions of voters who are registered to vote in more than one (adjacent) state.  And the precincts (37% of the precincts in Detroit alone) where the number of votes tops the number of registered voters.  And.  And.  And...

So much of it because the Democrats - and in conniving partnership with Obama's DOJ - have succeeded in buffaloing many states into supporting the scamming going on, by their passing laws not requiring photo ID; the ruse accomplished by cynically calling such a requirement ”voter suppression”… 

And on it goes. On.  And on.  And on…


No more.

All of this sort of thing - everything reeking of corruption - will be wrung out of ‘the System’.

As we go


With you.

Or without you.

Your choice.

No comments: