It took over two centuries, but the truth has finally caught up with George Washington. For 220 years, Washington’s dark secret laid undiscovered in a ledger of The New York Society Library, but it is now public: George Washington is a book scofflaw with overdue charges piling up for over 220 years on two books.
It turns out that Mr. “I Cannot Tell a Lie” had little difficulty in absconding with hot books. As a representative of George Washington University (a school whose original charter was paid by George Washington himself), I can only express a sense of great shame and self-loathing.
One of the books was the “Law of Nations” and the other was a volume of debates from Britain’s House of Commons. Both books were due on Nov. 2, 1789.
The selection of Law of Nations is interesting since it was an early work on international law. Recently, there has been a backlash against the Supreme Court’s application of international law rulings. The selection of the work on the House of Commons also reflects the continuing interest and reliance on English legal customs.
Notably, on April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office on the balcony of Federal Hall on Wall Street in New York. On April 16, 1789 Washington left Mount Vernon to go to New York City, then the nation’s capital, for his inauguration.
These particular books were checked out on October 5, 1789. Notably, Washington was in New York on October 3, 1789, when he signed a Thanksgiving Proclamation — just blocks from the library. The proclamation gives thanks for “the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge.” Was this a taunt to the librarians hot on this trail or a subconscious cry for help?
The current fine has reached $300,000 according to one article, here, or roughly $4200 according to another article, here. Either way, they were even less likely to get the overdue charges in the eighteenth century. George Washington had to borrow money to go to New York for his inauguration.
For the full story, click here.
Doc Conspiracy exploded this Vattel myth a year ago:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/
Quoting “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” he noted that “Those words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel that first appeared in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification.”
Doc concludes “how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Artile II of the Constitution.”
You know what they say about people with their pants on fire.
He Pants, if you are going to call names and impugn someone’s name, why not have the guts to post your own name?
Do you not realize that readers consider the source?
An anonymous troll and possible sock puppet gets little credence around here.
“Did Barack Obama II owe allegiance to a foreign state at the time of his birth?”
No.
Under the United States Constitution, he was born in the United States and was subject to its jurisdiction. He was a citizen at birth. There are only two kinds or citizens, natural born and naturalized. He was not naturalized. He was born a citizen. He is therefore a natural born citizen.
That is what our Constitution says.
I don’t know what Constitution that the birthers are reading from, or what words in that Constitution support their position. I do not see any words in there to support them.
No other country has or had any jurisdiction, that is power or control, over him.
If he had returned to Kenya before age 21, he might have CHOSEN to get Kenyan citizenship through his father, and thereby become subject to Kenyan jurisdiction while in that country, but he never did.
Kenya may have accorded him “citizenship,” but it never asserted any jurisdiction or power over him and could not have done so.
It is clear from the common law that an infant born in the realm of the King owed allegiance to that King. It is clear from the Constitution that an infant born in the United States owes allegiance to the United States. The sole exceptions, drawn from the common law, are for children of diplomats and hostile invading Armies.
Pants said “In his last post, Mr. Treacy attempts to convince (great word; appropriately combining Con and Vince) the readers that the French version of Les Driot des gens “would have used the term indigenes”.
If anyone scrolls up, they will find that I wrote that “the edition loaned to Washington would have used the term indigenes, since the translation using “natural born citizen” did not appear until 10 years later.” The book with the English title Law of Nations would have been an English translation. I was talking about the English translation, and trying to highlight the fact that it may not have used the term “natural born citizen.” What term did it use? Native?
I never said anything about the French version, and never asserted anything about what it would have said. It is my understanding that the translation “natural born citizen” first appeared ten years later, but I am open to any and all evidence to the contrary, in which case I will change that statement. Please include links to the translations. What, exactly, did the edition borrowed by Washington say?
I will wait for Pants to clarify what he, she or it is talking about before investing any more time in this.
mespo727272,
If only “some of the far right” have a problem with deception that may explain a lot. It is evident that some on the far left encourage deceptive acts.
Are you one to encourage deceptive acts? Are you one of those attorneys who enjoys the thrill of winning by deception?
Your friend “Blouise” must be one of those on the far left who favors deception.
I read the whole diatribe by Pants on fire only to find out that it’s just another birther rant … what a waste of time.
POF:
He truly is a representative of the kind of attorney … [some of the far right] citizens of America have come to despise.
*******************
That would be the honest kind, I suppose.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive” -Sir Walter Scott
Mr. Treacy should be recognized for his efforts to deceive the readers of this fine blawg. He truly is a representative of the kind of attorney the citizens of America have come to despise.
In his last post, Mr. Treacy attempts to convince (great word; appropriately combining Con and Vince) the readers that the French version of Les Driot des gens “would have used the term indigenes”. Mr. Treacy conveniently left off the three words that proceeded “indigenes”.
“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
The words “naturels” and “indigènes” both have the same meaning. the mean “natives”.
The Naturals or indigenes are those who are born in the country of citizens Parens.
http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=&ie=UTF-8&text=Les+Naturels+ou+indig%C3%A8nes+font+ceux+qui+font+n%C3%A9s+dans+le+pays+de+Parens+Citoyens&sl=fr&tl=en#fr|en|font%20ceux%20qui%20font%20n%C3%A9s%20dans%20le%20pays%20de%20Parens%20Citoyens
By nature, there has never been a question as to those who are born in a country of parents who are themselves citizens. Without the need for any positive laws, those children are citizens of that country. That is the natural way.
Why be deceptive if the truth is on your side, Mr. Treacy?
From the New Englander and Yale Review, Volume 3
Citizenship of a state, manifestly implies a relation of some sort, subsisting between the state and the citizen as parties, and defined by a designation of the persons who stand in that relation, and by a statement of the rights and duties which it essentially involves.
As used by writers on natural law, the term designates the status of an individual considered as a member of the state. It imports, on the part of the citizen, the duty of allegiance and obedience ; and on the part of the state, the correlative duty of protecting its members, by its force and its laws, in the enjoyment of essential fundamental rights. And all free persons, born within the limits of a state, or who, not being native born, have been duly admitted to equality of condition with those who are, are held to be members and citizens of that state, unless expressly excluded by its municipal
In the intercourse of nations, and in the public law which regulates it, the term ‘ citizen’ is used with respect to our own and other republican governments wherever ‘ subject’ is used with respect to monarchies, and includes all persons under the protection of such government, as owing allegiance to it. For example, the eighth article of the treaty of 1783 stipulates that ” the navigation of the river Mississippi shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.” Under such a usage, in the numerous casesof prize and capture with which, up to the close of the last war, the Federal Courts were crowded, the rights of parties in suit, under the law of nations, depended on their ciiizenship, and that on their allegiance.
In this manner this term is used in the Constitution of the United States ; in every instance, it is believed, unless the one in dispute furnishes an exception. Thus the article defining the judicial power, declares that it shall extend ” to controversies between a state, or citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.” In all cases arising under this clause, the character of an individual, as citizen or subject, is determined by a single test, which is his allegiance ; if due to a foreign state, it constitutes him a citizen or subject of that state ; if due to the United States, it constitutes a citizen of the United States, and of his particular state. And so, too, in other clauses of the same article ; it has been settled by repeated decisions that the term ” citizen of a state” includes all persons ” resident or domiciled in a particular state, being at the same time citizens of the United States;”* which latter qualification again, as already stated, depends on allegiance to the United States, by
• Judge Washington. See 4 Wash. Circuit Court Reports, 516.
birth or naturalization. The expression ‘citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word ‘citizen’ is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members.
Did Barack Obama II owe allegiance to a foreign state at the time of his birth? The answer is undoubtedly YES.
Vince,
If your batting ability matched your prescience (and tenacity), you’d be a Hall of Famer.
Just as predicted.
In a Petition for Reconsideration and Suggestion for Rehearing En Bank before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, petitioner solemnly notes that Washington never returned his library book:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30315695/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-APPEAL-PETITION-filed-1241041-by-Appellant-Petition-Transport-Room
I am not making this up. Scroll to page 13 of the petition.
The poor schlunk thinks that this proves that the concept of “natural born citizen” from Vattel’s treatise on the law of nations is what the founders had in mind. Sorry, (1) the edition loaned to Washington would have used the term indigenes, since the translation using “natural born citizen” did not appear until 10 years later, and (2) Washington did not borrow it until 1789, two years after the Constitutional Convention was completed.
pete, Gen. Lee’s house was not stolen; it was merely taken by the most eminent domain.
While on a trip to New England several years ago, I made a point of stopping by the Forbes Library in Northamption, Mass. to return a copy of the “Aeneid” that I had checked out in 1966. I confess that I was not so much motivated by honesty as by a desire to find out what sort of reaction I would receive. The desk clerk looked at it and began to hand it back to me, pointing out that the library no longer used the old indexing system or the “card in the pouch” check-out method. I explained to him that he could always re-index it and place it back in circulation. It’s not like I had chewed the binder or spilled food on any of the pages. He reluctantly set it aside as though I had saddled him with a bothersome task, and had no response at all when I told him (only half-jokingly) that I had no intention of paying a fine. All in all, I might as well have kept it.
I assume Mt. Vernon has a library. Has anyone looked there? If it is found, who gets to keep it?
The following quote is from Robert E Lee’s Definition of a (Southern) Gentleman:
” … He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. …”
Pete and AY, Yeah, and the Union bombed Fort Sumpter to start all that “aggression” against the southern states.
And the Americans refused to remove their Navy from Pearl Harbor and open the Pacific to peaceful occupation by the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, so the Americans started the War of American Aggression in the Pacific on Dec. 7, 1941.
Pathetic revisionist historical fables.
The so-called confederacy never existed as a nation, never controlled its borders, and was never recognized by any sovereign nation. All those States remained in the Union, even though occupied by rebels, and their stars stayed on the flag.
When J. Davis asked Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United State of America, to negotiate about securing peace to the two countries, Lincoln responded by stating that he would negotiate “with the view to securing peace to the people of our one common country.”
Davis caved on that one.
So keep telling the little stories you learned at your grandpappies’ knees.
We ain’t listening because we Americans fought to save the Union and to free the slaves, and we won.
the first capitol of the confederacy was in montgomery al. and robert e lee did not attack the union, the union attacked him then stole his house.
Nah, we are home to Exxon and Haliburton. Enough said….. However, I will give you one W for anything you have with the exception of Toxic Waste. If he moved any place else it is guaranteed to raise the IQ of both. Heck with his you can see where no child left behind worked.
Anonymously Yours
Blouise,
Wage war with whom? It was just a little ole disagreement. Just because the North was the aggressor does not mean that we did not have the duty to repel the invasion. Some you win, some you lose.
I will offer this, if Lincoln had kept his original command that was in place when the invasion started. It would have been short sweet and the Southern capitol would be in Mississippi. And you all would be stuck with what you have now.
=================================================================
Sour grapes from the Lone Star