truckinslave
Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
Because the Supreme court is reviewing his citizenship status. ..and July is when they get to it.
He may be a citizen, and it may not matter.
No less a case than Marbury v. Madison holds (obviously in part) not only that every phrase in the Constitution is unique, but also that any argument to the contrary is "not competent" (unworthy of consideration). "Citizen" is not "natural born citizen".
M de Vattel, in Law of Nations, published in 1758, gives the first definition of "nbc" that I can confirm (Vattels work was in part a translation from the Latin of Wolffs tome of a similar title. I do not know if Wolff originated the phrase and defined it, to be subsequently translated by Vattel; if the phrase and definition are entirely the work of Vattel; or if Vattel modified/refined something from Wolff. For that matter, Wolffs work was based upon only God knows what sources; there are probably many antecedents).
I do know the Founding Fathers were familiar with Vattel; his definition was certainly the one known and used by the FFs. And I do know that Vattel defined "natural born citizen" as one who met four requirements:
1. His mother was a citizen.
2. His father was a citizen.
3. He was born in-country.
4. He was not beholden to any foreign power at the time of his birth.
BHO meets, at the very best, two of those requirements.
My question, since I thought all of the suits against BHOs eligibility had been tossed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs, is: why is the SCOTUS reviewing the matter.
Off-topic: I thought at the SOTU that his rude hectoring of the Justices had no real upside and a lot of potential downside. Arrogant, rookie move.
|
RE: Obama - failure, but change is coming - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread