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.
In turn…When did the people ratify the common law of England?
When did the people ratify Judicial Review? At least in my case the words exist to be defined.
“The people” did not ratify the Constitution. It was adopted by members of the state conventions. While I don’t have information from all the states, I can tell you that North Carolina had 268 attendees. Could 264 people in North Carolina have been familiar with Vattel? That would be reasonable. Many people on the plantaions studied the law.
GWLSM said “to my belief that this whole thing is racially motivated”
OK. I’ll play the game. Let’s say it is racially motivated. But just in case; let’s also say that it’s politically motivated, anti-christian, anti-muslim, anti-lawyer, anti-hope and anti-change, et al. I don’t want to miss any.
So what? A legitimate constitutional question about the qualifications of the President exist for the first time in our life, a question that should be decided…once and for all, and you want to ignore it? Why? Don’t you trust our Court?
If you have that little faith in our system of laws, you might as well give up. The only correct decisions aren’t just those with which you agree.
Tell me. Why do you think the President would endure all this controversy just to keep the vault copy of his birth certificate from public view? Think about it. Who would let this continue when it can be so easily resolved? Haven’t you figured out that there is more to this than our President wants us to know? If his BC is as he claims…he should be proud to show it. -One call to the Governor of Hawaii and I’m sure it would be released.
“When did the people ratify Vattel?
Wow!”
*************
Viva, Vattel! oops, that was Zapata.
Gyges writes: Is it just me or did BMV just predict a coup d’état?
hmmmm….. I don’t think its just you…. unless BVM doesn’t know that the military works for the president…..
Vattel’s definition was not affected by a constitutional amendment, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
When did the people ratify Vattel?
Wow!
BVM writes: Print out a copy of Obama’s COLB and drop by the DMV in your city … see for yourself. They won’t accept it as proof of birth. They aren’t Obama fools 🙂
you really don’t ever get tired of this, do you? One might expect that any normal person, finding such opposition to a crazy idea would either drop it or go find other like minded folks instead of doing what you do.
let me ask you this: would you be so involved in this hysteria if Obama were white?
Vince,
No one has a right to be President. You must be elected and meet the qualifications. Those qualifications do not descriminate against a protected class.
Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not affected. In addition, Vattel’s definition does not descriminate against a protected class?
Mike A writes: to me, it’s an uncomplicated English common law analysis. The Founders were not concerned with one’s parentage. That’s why naturalized citizenship was fine for congressional candidates. But they wanted to make certain that future presidents had roots in American soil, meaning that they were born here. That Vattel is literally the only scholarly authority for the birthers’ position is reason enough to suspect the agenda.
me: thank you. at last, an explanation that makes sense and allows us to move on. this whole birther thing is getting frustrating and tiresome and only adds to my belief that this whole thing is racially motivated.
Jim B,
“… as we have done with the 14th and 19th amendments.” Exactly. I am arguing that if your interpretation of Vattel is correct, then by virtue of these amendments Barack Obama received NBC status from his mother (since Vattel (according to you) established that only 1 parent is required and in light of 14 and 19 there is no distinction between men and women in the constitution). Why not just make things easier for yourself and admit that President Obama is the legitimate holder of his office?
1797. [?]
Jim,
I menat to type Seventeen Ninety Seven, not 1997!
Benji
Also, Benji, the quote was from Marshall not Story.
“They have verified that they have Obama’s original “certificate of live birth” in the vault, but have not verified that the information contained on the COLB matches the information on the vault copy.”
You really think they examined their records, and THEN allowed a fake COLB to be circulated? Go over to Leo Donofrio’s site and see what he thinks of that idea.
This is getting to the point of Moynihan’s quip: Everyone is entitle to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.
I can no more prove the COLB to you that I can prove to bdaman that Armstrong landed on the Moon. It is only my opinion that men landed on the Moon 40 years ago this week?
Jim,
1997 NOT 1997! Sorry typo.
Benji
Dear Jim Byrne,
You wrote: “The U.S. Supreme Court Reports present Justice Joseph Story (in 1814) indentifying Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says” –and goes on to quote Vattel’s definition of citizens.”
Ah, but your cite of Story’s comment leads to one of the most disappointing discoveries the Birther’s ran across after trumpeting the Constitution’s verbatum use of the expression “Natural Born Citizen” from Vattel’s work. Turns out no English translation of Vattel’s work used that expression until 1997, a decade too later for any claim that it was adopted verbatum from Vattel by the Framers.
Story reveals as much in the SCOTUS case you quoted from, “The Venus”, a more complete citeing of which would have continued, “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, 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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Notice the oft quoted line “Natural Born Citizen” is not there YET, because translations undisputed by Vattel while he was still alive (considered more authentic I suppose by Story, even in 1814), used the expression “Natives or Indigenes” Go to Justia’s site and call up “The Venus” and page search for “Vattel” – the second hit will get you to my longer cite.
Consult a book expert on 18th and 19th Century works and you will discover that later editions and translations often misleadingly quote the original year of the work’s publication.
The French language would have provided “Citoyen de naissance” if Vattel had intended that expression.
Apuzzo has pretended to state this little detail doesn’t matter.
The Dumas editions Franklin received are among the “pre NBC” verbatum translations. The plot thins.
BenjiFranklin
No, Jim, the officials who issued the COLB signed and sealed it certifying it as an official record. If they lied, they left themselves open to prosecution. I just do not think that happened. No one can prove a negative, but the liklihood is diminishingly small.
You can label it opinion all you want. No one is making you believe me. But the COLB is an official document. And I have posted numerous links that objective journalists and others have posted that verify its validity. They have taken the COLB and photographed the seal and signatures. We have more proof of Obama’s birth than most other Presidents.
Also, there should be some clarity. Is the COLB a forgery? Is it authentic, and actually issued by the Hawaiian government, but falsely states that Obama was born in Hawaii when their records show he was born elsewhere.
The birthers have candidly acknowledged that they fully expect any underlying records to show that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is why they have invented the 2 parent theory.
My postings can stand on their own. I have read even more scholarly treatment of this subject, and everything confirms my postings so far.
And the 14th did in fact amend the natural born clause. The 14th overturned Dred Scott, which said that at the time of Declaration and the Constitution, a black man had no rights a white man had to respect. It held that a black person could not be a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. Before the 14th, a black man could not even sue or vote or be a natural born citizen, but after the 14th, an African American man or woman who was born an American citizen like Obama could be elected President.
The Constitution is not amended like a statute, with a clause saying section blank is hereby amended by inserting these words or to read as follows. Just as Art I and the amendment requiring direct election of Senators must be read together and harmonized, so also Amendment 14 must be read together with the NBC clause, because it did amend NBC to change the definition of citizen in that clause to include Black Americans.
Vince,
You should really learn to preface your opinions with “In my opinion” or something of the like.
Or I can omit such notice of opinion, and state that; In fact it is the law.
Vince, did you vote for President Obama? If so, are you really expecting us to believe that you are impartial?
Why wouldn’t I take you at your word? -You state that Hawaiian officials have verified Obama’s COLB. -That is not the truth.
They have verified that they have Obama’s original “certificate of live birth” in the vault, but have not verified that the information contained on the COLB matches the information on the vault copy. -To me, a statement made with the intent to deceive, is the same thing as a lie.
Jim, it is not fair, but luckily it is not the law. Neither father nor mother can transmit NBC status. A citizen can only have that status by being born a U.S. citizen, being a citizen by birth.
“Can the father alone transmit NBC status?”
Yes. That would go along with Vattel’s definition.
I know it doesn’t seem fair, and the law should be fair. However, the way we correct an unfair attribute of the Constitution is by Amendment. -As we have done with the 14th and 19th Amendments.
Currently, in my opinion, we are ignoring the Constitution in order to appease the masses. -It is good for the government to fear the citizens, but it’s not good to avoid the Constitution in order to make people happy..even if it’s the majority that are being made happy.