The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
Some of you may be interested in reading the online snippet, provided by the University of Pennsylvania, of “The Law of Nations as part of the Natural Law of the United States”
It was written in 1952 by Edwin D. Dickinson (former Dean of the University of California School of Law)
As to the common law of nations, we thus have Dr. Franklin’s authority for the statement that the members of the Continental Congress referred to and accepted Vattel’s famous treatise, as the measure and standard of the duties of the colonies, soon to become free and independent States.2 We could, however, dispense with his authority, inasmuch as the common law of nations was then regarded as an intricate part of the common law of England, and adopted as a system by the adoption of the common law. For does not Blackstone inform us, in his Commentaries, that “the law of nations (when ever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is hereby adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.”
from “The United States of America” by James Brown Scott (1920)
In Re Baiz ( 135 U. S., 403)
“Vattel was a philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert. He was councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.”
Now that’s a real good citation for how we should interpret our Constitution and right out of Wikipedia to boot. You’re really a deep one JB.
Vince Treacy, Thank you for the discussion and the new links. Not all of this was repetitive from your other posts on other threads, most of which I read. I learned a lot from this discussion and that is why I specifically requested your and Mike Appleton’s comments. Thanks Mike A.
Jim Byrne, your posts were worthwhile and elicited comments that were informative and without which this discussion would not be as complete and interesting; continue on, Mike Spindell has his BP under control and we older guys are a bit set in our ways.
I am now convinced by the evidence and reasoning what the Framers intended a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen to entail. Too bad, they lacked specificity in their definition. This discussion illustrates why it is important for legislators and the judiciary to define—clearly and unequivocally—the foundation of all laws when made and when laws are contested and then adjudicated, judges must write clear, unambiguous, and detailed opinions to serve as a clear-cut guides as preventatives to legal misunderstandings and then unnecessary lawsuits.
Mike Spindell, thanks for your contribution to this thread and for taking the time to read the material at the link although you have already made your mind up over this issue. Contrary evidence is critical and often helpful to one’s own counterarguments.
BVM.com, thanks for the video, “Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?”, which got me started asking specific questions.
One more time.
Natural born citizen is a legal term of art. Vince’s claims are not supported by definition. His opinion is, his opinion. -Much the same as my opinion is just my opinion.
My opinion is supported by two former Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Vattel was a philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert. He was councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.
“I was surprised to discover that it is an anonymous site, one of those sites where unnamed people hammer the president about transparency, but who take great pains to make certain that their own identities are not disclosed.”
Mike A,
This is what was getting me so annoyed. The game being played is so obvious and yet some of its players like Byrne claim earnestness and impartiality. From now on, as Mr. Byrne wishes, you can be the Mike on this thread tearing his tissue of lies.
Vince,
Tag you’re it. Truth be told I was beginning to lose it. When I’m faced with faulty reasoning, abject denial and a refusal to notice points made I lose patience. Also truth be told you do a much better job then I do on this, without the hysterics.
“Mike S.,
Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.”
Au revoir Monsieur Vattel, and thank you for the most amusingly bad reasoning of the week. Perhaps since you’ve eliminated the Common Law from consideration and replaced it with a Swiss, you might try looking at the Code Napoleon and surmise that John Jay foresaw it in a psychic vision? No, that’s no good, it’s makes more sense then your original argument and you’re all about the nonsense.
Jim Byrne, I just checked the site from which you were extensively quoting, birthers.org. I was surprised to discover that it is an anonymous site, one of those sites where unnamed people hammer the president about transparency, but who take great pains to make certain that their own identities are not disclosed. That is problem for me because I have an inherent distrust of rumor mongers. It is one thing to anonymously post one’s opinion on an issue. It is quite another to promote as authoritative a site whose origins, promoters and funding sources are completely unknown.
Organizations which purport to be reputable don’t need to wear white robes and hoods.
“Natural Born Citizen… Does that mean if your born by Cesarean you’re ineligible?”
Hidflect,
Don’t give them ideas.
Jim Byrne, there was no common law in this country at its founding other than English common law. George Mason’s comments notwithstanding, where do you think American common law came from?
I don’t know where you live, but Section 2.01 of the Florida Statutes, adopted by the first Florida legislature in 1829, provides as follows: “The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, that said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.” I believe that virtually all other states (with the exception of Louisiana) adopted a similar statute.
In his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” published in 1833, Joseph Story notes the following: “The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” (Chapter XVI, paragraph 79).
And we shouldn’t forget the 7th Amendment, which preserves the right to trial by jury “in suits at common law” where the damages exceed $20.00. What “common law” do you think the Framers were referring to?
Hidflect,
Not only that, but you could kill MacBeth.
Natural Born Citizen… Does that mean if your born by Cesarean you’re ineligible? I’m only half joking! You could make a legal case out of that, no? (don’t shoot me…)
There are a lot of prior threads on this topic at this site. Readers can use the search window at this site for terms like donofrio, mccain, birth and natural born citizen, or just google those terms and Turley.
The links to the other threads do not seem to want to be posted at this time.
Time to feed the dog and the cat.
One more time.
Natural born citizen is defined as a person who was born as a citizen of the United States.
Jim Byrne July 22, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Mike S., Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.
Mike, I should be so lucky.
Byrne, I said that Vattel was not a common law jurist, and I am right, and he is not an authority on any common law concept.
The United States and the individual states did receive common law slectively, and some terms in the Constitution, like Bill of Attainder, can only be understood by referring to the common law. See the 7th Amendment to find out about civil jury trials.
So don’t quote Mason out of context to refute something I did not say.
And there is no need for an attack on Hamilton. In this instance, they took his draft nearly verbatim, so your generalization does not hold.
Vince,
I case you didn’t know it, Hamilton’s ideas were regularly rejected. He got mad, and went home, missing out on most of the convention, only to return for the committee of style.
“Appuzzi is really out of his depth. In his brief, linked above, he cites Vattel for the “common law definition” of natural born citizen. Vattel himself would be surprised to be called a common law jurist.”
In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
Alexander Hamilton was one of the people who suggested the natural born citizen clause. He recommended that no person be President unless he “be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Found by Jill Pryor, see1988 Yale Law Journal 881, at 889. Link above.
They took his proposal. Natural born citizen is defined as a person who was born as a citizen of the United States.
Since Obama was born a citizen of the United States under the rule of the 14th Amendment, he is eligible.