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.
Mike S.,
Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.
Can’t keep up with the flip-flops by Byrne. First he needed parents for citizenship at birth, then he did not, and then he retracted his retraction. Okay. Have to deal with the position of the day.
None of that stuff Byrne pasted up from the net on Vattel’s influence seems to have mentioned a framer or founder actually citing or relying specifically on his natural born citizen stuff. Can’t find it in his source, either.
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.
Just to repeat. It is the birthers who are trashing the Constitution by trying to put their own personal partisan position into it, when there is no support in its language or intent.
Repeat, the birthers are trashing the Constitution. The Constitution, read as a whole, allows anyone who is 35 and has resided in the US for 14 years to run for President, as long as he or she was born a United States citizen. In different words, if a person is a citizen by birth rather than naturalization, that person may try to be elected President.
The birther-Donofrio arguments are too tenuous and remote to come anywhere near to altering the plain language of the Constitution and its intent.
“I’m sorry, but you are acting like a crazy man.”
Au contraire Jim, a crazy man is defined as one who keeps losing and continues the same strategy.
“What do JFK, FDR, MLK, and some mayor, have to do with the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution?”
It has to do with the potential treason that you are encouraging with your nonsense.
“as to my concurrence with the 14th Amendment. -If you continue to read that same thread, you will see that I retracted my concurrence.”
Jim,
Nobody cares about the minutiae of your flagging thought process, you’ve been destroyed factually, logically and rhetorically, not to mention being exposed as a deceitful partisan.
Mike S.,
I’m sorry, but you are acting like a crazy man. Do you ever focus on the subject in front of you? Do you often go off on wild tangents?
What do JFK, FDR, MLK, and some mayor, have to do with the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Thanks for the laugh.
“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.”
Back to Donofrio for your comments again Jim? You running out of thoughts? It sure looks like your balloon is losing its’
hydrogen.
“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.”
And who was the architect of the Judiciary Branch of our Government? –Why none other than John Jay. He was the principle author of the oft-forgotten Judiciary Act of 1789.
“For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin.”
Jim,
Poor rejoinder again. None of the quotes are pertinent and I’m aure that the founding Father’s knew of Vattel, that proves nothing.
“Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel”
The constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 three years after the case you cite. Come on Jim, man up and admit the fact that this is all about your political beliefs and you don’t like our President and will attach yourself to any crumb to try to de-legitimize him.
Beware Jim, those you align yourself with include crazy people, some of whom have weapons. The consequences of your behavior may be indirectly contributing to possible treason.
Perhaps though, despite your self control and denials, you would welcome such a consequence? Just remember after FDR was elected, General Smedley Butler was approached to initiate a coup by Prescott Bush and other industrialists. There was an assassination attempt on FDR, but the assassin missed and killed Mayor Anton Cernak instead. I remember the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK done by the same type of people you align yourself with and support. You are playing in dangerous waters Jim and covering yourself with rotting seaweed in the process.
And Vince,
As to my concurrence with the 14th Amendment. -If you continue to read that same thread, you will see that I retracted my concurrence.
Jim Byrne
1, July 17, 2009 at 10:14 am
“—Unfortunately, as I am reminded, that would indicate that even though one who was born in within the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a citizen at birth, they may not be eligable to serve as POTUS if the parents were not U.S. Citizens.”
lrhf97, right, thanks, I have caught up with your posts. Keep posting. We need you.
Vattel’s Influence on the term Natural Born Citizen
“When any of you are interested in providing a definition of natural born citizen, that we could reasonably attribute to the mindset of the Framers, please post it.”
Jim,
Gutless copout showing who you really are. You were beaten to a pulp by Vince and others, factually, logically and rhetorically, but not man enough to admit it. To me that means that for you it was always political and your version of politics is riddled with disingenuous and hypocrisy. You’re good
Jim, but you’re not in the league of some of the people here, of whom I’m among the least.
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.
When any of you are interested in providing a definition of natural born citizen, that we could reasonably attribute to the mindset of the Framers, please post it.
Vince,
Game, set and match. You have once again simply outworked and out thought the opposition. You are my hero and I’d say I’d like to be Vince Treacy when I grow up, but unfortunately I’m older than you are. My compliments and my respect.
Vince,
if you read my posts you would know that i completely agree with you. i know you had a lot to read to catch up, but i am on your side. Just thought i would mention it.
My post about you was in reference to how you neutered Cooks attempt bring the birther arguement to court. he ran out of gas through his and his lawyers own incompetence because the facts that were supposed to lead to that issue implode.
I have been lurking for a few months but had to post in this thread because Jim Byrne’s comments were about to make my head blow up. I have not seen your posts in other thread only this one. Obviously you didn’t read mine except the last one and took it the wrong way (like i said, there was a lot to catch up on), no worries.
“I am dismayed at the posts herein that evidence so much passion coupled with so little information.”
Kelly,
I’m dismayed that you would write without reading and basically make a statement as stupid as that. The issued has been wrapped up and settled and if you think the question is open then it is you who are uninformed.
“Honestly, learn, think, understand and find out why good minds are dismayed by the possibility of this issue.”
Honestly Kelly, you don’t have a good mind, but it is not to late to educate yourself.
Slartibartfast. Thanks.
Kelly, please read the posting above at July 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm and the law review note and CRS Report link there, and you will find an abundance of information on what exactly is a natural born citizen.
In other posts, here and on other threads, I have made it clear that Obama is a natural born citizen and is the President of the United States.
Even the Pope thinks so.
Kelly, most of us who have been “opining” on this issue have done so on three or four different threads. Most of us have also read a great deal of material on the issue. Implicit in your comment is the suggestion that you are knowledgable on the subject. Why don’t you give us the benefit of your opinion and rationale?