It has been my contention from the very beginning that the US Constitution is unclear as to what the phrase “natural born citizen” means and that neither I, nor you, nor anybody else can really claim to be the ‘guardian of truth’. I have not been trying to convince you that it means anything. I have simply tried to point out that your determination to convince others of one particular interpretation was misplaced, since it is clear that alternatives exist. It seems I have succeeded.

For the record, I suspect that the writers of the Constitutaion followed neither Vattel nor Blackstone and used the phrase to mean something entirely of their own understanding. I suspect that they intended it to mean only those born on US soil and that gradually that has been widened – by common consent – to also mean offspring of US citizens irrespective of their birth location. This is the impression I get from the historical data flowing for the varions documents and problems that have occured over the past 200 years.

I agree that it would be wise for the US constitutional system to sort this out once and for all and present an unequivocable and unarguable definition as to the necessary requirements to be a “natural born citizen”.

I have no idea how Obama producing his “long form” birth certificate will make a blind bit of difference. Does it have a definitive definition of “natural born citizen” written on it?

The problem is in the definition of the requirement not what is written on his birth certificate.

Habitual Smoker

“Thus, if you contend Vattel’s “Naturel” definition is correct in the absence of dismissal of his words, then Blackstone’s definition holds equal validity since it too was not dismissed.”

There you have it in a nutshell Sir, you have your view, I have mine – neither of us can be judged correct, only a court of Law can do that.

I contend that in the absence of Obama producing the long form document, then a court must decide in order to remove the element of doubt from many minds that the Presidency may not be legitimate.

He owes that much to the young English men who are giving their lives to support the American led ‘war’ in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course their deployment is a decision made by the Prime Minister (Note: not parliament or HMG – it is the Prime Minister alone who must decide) but in view of the so called ‘special relationship’ the call to arms by the US has historically been a very difficult one for the UK to deny.

“[...] once a President was elected, his election was to last 4 years, even if errors were made as the decision to elect a President would be final and irrevocable. [...]“

I don’t understand. What simple question has he failed to answer? What are the lengths he is going to?

Your original article started with the report of Major Cook’s case and then progressed into your own analyis supporting it’s validity. You stated (not quoted somebody else), “The legal situation is quite simple – being a ‘natural born citizen’ requires both that you are born in the US and of a Father who is a US citizen but not necessarily a natural born citizen.”

I don’t wish to make this sound personal, but I cannot think of another way to type up that this is your view and that it is quite clearly contrary to all those that have vetted, approved and accepted Obama’s nomination and appointment.

I have accepted that “subjects” are different to “citizens” and written such above. I followed that by stating that Vattel’s “Naturel” is no less different to “citizen” than “subject”. On what basis should I assume that one is more similar than the other?

The founders of the US were indeed keen to distance themselves from the word “subject”. I would also suggest that they took the meaning/definition of Blackstone’s “natural-born subject” and simply replaced the word subject with citizen. Read how Blackstone defines “natural born” and it appears to be exactly the same as how the US system has defined “natural born”.

I don’t understand your point about “glossing their writtings” (sic). The Constitution makes no reference as to whether it is lead by Blackstone, Vattel or anybody else. Thus, if you contend Vattel’s “Naturel” definition is correct in the absence of dismissal of his words, then Blackstone’s definition holds equal validity since it too was not dismissed.

As regards the entire system and its obfuscation, then I concur to some degree. It is being obfuscated by legal proceedings such as Major Cook’s.

I accept that Major Cook’s legal challenge is an interesting one, and one that was worthy of bringing before a larger audience. I await the outcome with interest.

I find it interesting that the President would spend $1.5 million avoiding answering what seems to be a simple question – from which I infer that perhaps the answer is not as clear cut as you would wish.

You seem to wish to hav me argue and try the case single handed – if it was that straightforward then I am sure that Obama would not be going to such lengths to avoid it being heard.

You say I asm taking ‘a contrary view’ to the political and legal establishment’ – that is not so, I am publicising the fact that Major Cook’s legal team is taking a ‘contrary view’ to the political and legal establishment.

Perahps you are not a UK citizen and that is why you find the concept of ‘subjects’ being materially different to ‘citizens’ so difficult to understand. The US consitution was written specifically to ensure that its citizens were not also subjects, that is why I find it so difficult to take seriously your attempt to pray Blackstone in support of your arguement.

In a court of law, whether in the UK or the US, any judge will look to the citations regarding the definition available at the time the legislature was framed. If the founding fathers did have an alternative meaning in mind – then they should have glossed their writtings.

They didn’t.

Since the only other writtings you have been able to cite concern ‘subjects’, which most definitely couldn’t be what the founding fathers intended – we have come full circle back to Vatell again.

I would agree that it is the entire US politiical system that has a major question of leglitimacy to answer to – which is why it is such a shame that so many people have attempted to side track that uncomfortable fact.

Understandable though, we have a similar issue over the Attorney General’s advice to Blair over the legitimacy of the Iraq war.

Sorry. It must be the smoke from my pipe. Can be a little irritating at times, but as the saying goes, “no smoke without fire”.

Habitual Smoker

I know. The people who make and uphold the law actually knowing what the correct definition may be. Who’d have thought it!

What is the world coming to?

Habitual Smoker

PS. UK troops are deployed according to decisions made by HMG and Parliament. They are not deployed at the whim of a US President irrespective of his or her legitimacy. Whether the UK has got it right, is a completely different matter entirely.

Love it!

Thank you. McClain is no more or less a “natural born citizen” than Obama. Either they were both eligible for office, or they both were not. If Anna Raccoon is correct with here thesis that Obama was ineligible, then whatever the outcome of the 2008 Presidential race, the President would have no authority. How could the US democratic process have failed so spectacularly?

Anna Raccoon,

My apologies for assuming that you lend greater credibility to McClain’s legitimacy as presidential candidate. Do you now accept that both candidates were ineligible for office according to your thesis, and if so, then the entire US political system has a major question of legitimacy to respond to – not just Obama?

“Subjects” do indeed have different rights to “Citizens”. As do “Naturels” and “Citoyens”. I do not see any compelling evidence to suggest that Vattel’s “Naturel” has greater sway over the issue than “Subjects” as used by several others. What is it that compels you to believe this? And certainly nothing to suggest that the writers of the Constitution didn’t assume their own definition.

You are quite right. The law is the law. But I do not see how your interpretation of the words “natural born citizen” constitutes the law.

This is not discussing “symantics”, this is discussing what the actually the law is. You are arguing that the authorities which scutinise the candidates right to stand for office have got the law wrong by allowing Obama and McCain to participate. In effect, you are taking a contrary view to the political (and legal) establishment in the US. It is for you to demonstrate why your interpretation holds more weight than theirs.

Obama has already produced the documentation, and made it public even though there was no requirement for him to do so, that meets the law as interpreted by the establishment.

Habitual Smoker

I do not claim that one is absolved from this requirement, but not the other. That is your theory, not mine. I am not interested in personalities, nor in their colour or religeon.

The law is the law, it is fundemental to the democratic process, fundemental to the Presidency, and that is fundemental to the legitimacy of many young British men giving their lives in Afghanistan.

‘Subjects’ are considerably different to ‘Citizens’ that is why Blackstone has no relevance here.

What does have relevance here is why you prefer to debate semantics rather than the simple question of why doesn’t the President produce the piece of paer which would avoid all doubt. Not just this President, but now that the issue has been raised by many thousands of people, by all future Presidents?

Justice has not only to be done, it must be seen to be done.

Habitual Smoker said: “You cannot claim that one is absolved from this requirement, but not the other.”

I don’t see that Anna has. There are just as many questions over McCain’s qualifications* to be President but most important to this discussion – it weren’t him that won!

* He appears to have been merely a US national until the 2008 legislation that granted US citizenship to people born to US parents in the Panama Canal Zone after 1904. This doesn’t make McCain natural born and the Senate Resolution is non-binding.

You quoted (I will also ignore the accents but update to modern script): “Les Naturels, ou Indignes sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens”. This translates as: “The Naturals, or Indiginous are those that are born in the country of Citizen Parents.”

McCain fails the “born in the country” element, Obama fails the “of Citizen Parents” part.

You cannot claim that one is absolved from this requirement, but not the other.

Moreover, you cannot claim that Vattel’s “entire thesis ….” when the part you mention takes up just a couple of lines in a mammoth study of the intra and inter-state relations. Vattels ‘Les Droits des Gens” is not a thesis about sustaining a state by certain births, its about how a state regulates itself and with others.

It is also quite dishonest to assume that McCain would be able to circumvent his failure to meet the definition of “Naturel” as you claim, when Vattel clearly explains the case of those born on foreign soil to citizens as becoming “Citoyens” not “Naturels” – if the law of the land permits it. Note, they become Citoyen not Naturel. (Would you like me to quote this part because I notice it is not included on the ‘birthers’ website?)

Your argument is based on Obama not being a Naturel even though you accept he is a Citoyen. According to the definitions you use to justify this, McCain too is a Citoyen not a Naturel.

If your thesis is correct, the implications are that the US’ entire system of governance is illegitimate in that both the main candidates selected to run for President fail the “natural born citizen” test. Every institution that derives its authority from the President, is thus illegitimate.

Why do you dismiss William Blackstone’s 1765-1769 Commentary defining the concept of “natural-born subjects” as having any influence on the words “natural-born citizen”?

Why do you dismiss the Georgia Charter 1732 that defines “natural born Subjects” as having any influence on the words “natural born citizen”?

Both of these two documents have more relevence in both word content and connection with the US than the treatise of a Swiss philosopher.

Habitual Smoker

It is amazing how this issue has so many people who would prefer to sweep the matter under the carpet than discuss the legal issues, or to pretend that it is a racist matter.

It wasn’t a racist matter when Chester Arthur made the same deception, and since he was one of the framers of the 14th amendment, I would have thought that there was ample opportunity for the Constitution to be changed then if they had wanted the meaning to merely be ‘an american citizen.

So much fuss, so much money, just to avoid releasing one birth certificate that would settle the matter!