• SiteMeter

Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration

John Adams on Natural Born Citizens and Subjects

Here are some letters from John Adams concerning Natural Born Citizens and Subjects, including Natural Born Subjects.

John Adams

Dear Sir. Grosvenor Square July 24th. 1785—

I have a Letter from the Baron De Thulemeier of the 19th, and a Copy of his Letter to you of the same date. I hope now in a few Day’s to take Mr. Short by the hand in Grosvenor Square, and to put my hand to the [Tr]eaty. I think no time should be lost. We will join Mr. Dumas with Mr. Short in the Exchange if you please.

I applyed as you desire, and obtained the interposition of the Lords Commissioners of the treasury, and the Commissioners of the Customs for the transhipping of Dr. Franklin’s Baggage. We have heared of the Doctors arrival at Rouen, but no further.

— 994./ 130./ 301.1071. 160. 7 /1353./ 1333./ 925./ 1542./ 1178. 787. 793./ 1105./ 1537./ 340./ 195./ 583./ 330./ 542. 1307./ 162./ 1437./ 1145./ 565. 611. 244.1021./ 1297. 8./ 56. 712. 1024./ 1537./ 34./ 726./ 1105. 7./ 162./ 340./ 991./ 411./ 1145./ 425./ — — 565./ 519. 543. 277. 320./ 1213./ 436./ 527. 1291./ 240./ 1281. 1471. 518. 346. 598./ 994./ 525.7./ 297. 301./ 1162. 821./ 266. 7./ 240./ 994./ 69./ 1537./ 297. 301./ 1162. 821./ 1281. 186. 7./ 240./ 57./ 556. 998./ 240./ 994./ 1453./ 847. 1205./ 985./ 1154./ 780. 207. 1082./ 406./ 458./ 41. 747./ 565./ 413./ 1213./ 565./ 301. [152./] 985. 7./ 215./ 1145./ 677./ 213. 1122./ 1409./ 994./ 362./ 1103./ 179./ 676./ 636.7./ 506./ 292./ 206. 8. 1205. 1189./ 292./ 1290./ 1133./ 565./ 925. 694./ 247. 476. 1267. 7./ 240./ 330./ 65./ 1575. 1122./ 565./ 330./ 704./ 676./ 1072./ 406./ 301. 238. 1205./ 330./ 565./ 994./ 776. 1122./ 240./ 110. 821. 346. 7/ 114. 158. 7. 957. 8./ 215./ 7042.1042/ 994./ 362./ 1059./ 411./ 1575./ 565./ 330./ 406./ 562. 250./ 1319. 1190./ 559. 476. 1267. 7./ 365./ 951./ 1381. 436. 1449./ 1353. 7./ 1537./ 1199./ 1558. 250./ 2./ 616./ 446. 1492/ 330./ 1333./ 815./ 994./ 506./ 1290./ 1097./ 1537./ 933. 692. 1466. 925./ 1053./ 240./ 700./ 995./ 994./ 513. 1129. 633./ 215. /162./ 340./ 943. 1548./ 556./ 459. 895. 821./ 301. 1551./ 692. / 994 / 737./ 513. 1129. 633. /209./ 784./ 994./ 1351./ — 818./ 261./ 1579./ 1042./ 716./ 21./ 1086.7./ 565./ 1154. / —

There is a Bill before Parliament to prevent smuggling Tobacco, in which restrictions are very rigorous, but cannot be effected. two thirds of the Tobacco consumed in this Kingdom I am told is smuggled—how can it be otherwise when the impost is five times the original Value of the Commodity. If a pound in five escapes nothing is lost. if two in five, a great profit is made.

The Duty is 16d. pr. pound and tobacco sells for three pence. —Yet all applications for lowering the Duty are rejected— —

Yours most affectionately

John Adams

Thomas Jefferson’s Deciphered Version

the British alliense duty is a very burthensome thing and they may carry it hereafter as far upon tobacco rice indies & twenty other things as they do now upon oil. to obviate this I think of substituting the words natural born citizens of the U.S.and natural born subjects of G.B. in stead of the most favored nation you remember we first proposed to offer this to all nations, but upon my objecting that the English would make their ships French or sweadote or Dutch Etc. to avail themselves of it without agreeing to it on their part we alltered it to the foot ing of gentis amicissimi. but if the English will now agree to it we shall secure ourselves against many odious duties and no ill consequence can arise. it is time the French Dutch Sweden and Prussia will of course claim the advantage but as they must inreturn allow us the same advantage so much the better. let me know if any objection occurs to you

 

 

 

 

John Adams to John Jay

25 Aug. 1785

Dear Sir Grosvenor Square Westminster August 25. 1785

Yesterday, I had a long Conference with Mr Pitt for the first time. He never had proposed any Interview with me, and I had delayed to request him to appoint any Time, after the first ceremonial Visit, for two Reasons; because that while Parliament was Sitting his Time and Mind were so engaged that it was impossible he Should attend in earnest to the Affairs of the United States, and because I expected that a little Time would bring, both from America and Ireland, Intelligence which would Somewhat lessen that Confidence with which the Ministry and the Nation were elated. Such Intelligence has now arrived: The twenty Resolutions have been, in Effect, given up that they might not be rejected by the Irish Parliament: and the Massachusetts Act of Navigation has appeared, together with Advices from Virginia, Philadelphia New York and various other Parts of the United States, which have excited a Serious Apprehension that all have the same Principles and Views.

I Shall not attempt to give you the Conversation in detail, Yet it is necessary to give Some Particulars, from which you may judge, how much or how little may result from the whole[.]

He asked me what were the Principal Points to be discussed between Us? I answered that I presumed the Marquis of Carmarthen had laid before the Kings Servants Some Papers which I had done myself the Honour to write to him. He said he had. I replied that those Letters related to the Evacuation of the Posts upon the Frontier: to the Construction of the Armistice: and to a Treaty of Commerce: and that besides these, there were the Negroes carried off contrary to the Treaty, and Some other Points which I had particularly explained to Lord Carmarthen. He Said that the carrying off the Negroes was So clearly against the Treaty, that they must take Measures to Satisfy that demand if We could prove how many were carryed off. I told him that Sir Guy Carleton could easily ascertain the Number, and that Coll Smith, who negotiated with Sir Guy, could do the Same, And that I had the Evidence of their Proceedings ready to produce whenever it was wanted. He entered then into the Subject of the Armistice, and We were longer upon this Point than We need to have been. I observed to him that Mr Blowers’s Construction was demonstrably absurd, because it would place the whole Coast of America in the Period of five Months: the Coast of the United States certainly was not between the Canary Islands and the Equator, and therefore could not be included in the Period of two Months: it is neither in the Channell nor North Seas; and therefore cannot be within the Period of twelve Days: consequently if it is not in the Period of one Month, it must be in that of five Months.—an Idea that never could have been entertained a Moment by either of the contracting Parties. Mr Pitt Said he thought that was clear, and that this Point might be easily Settled: but as to the Posts, Says he, that is a Point connected with Some others that I think must be Settled at the same Time. I asked what those Points were? He said the Debts. Several of the States had interfered, against the Treaty, and by Acts of their Legislatures had interposed Impediments to the Recovery of Debts, against which there were great Complaints in this Country. I replied to this, that I had explained this at great length to the Marquis of Carmarthen; but that I might now Add, that Congress had, very early after the Peace, proposed an Explanation of the Article, as far as it respected the Interest of Debts contracted before the War. They had instructed their Ministers at Paris to propose Such an Explanation to this Court. That We had proposed it, through Mr Hartley first and the Duke of Dorsett afterwards; and that I had renewed the Proposition to my Lord Carmarthen, upon my first Conference with him: but that We had never received any Answer. I thought it was best there Should be an Explanation; for I was perswaded th[at] an American Jury would never give any Interest for the Time which run during the War. Mr Pitt Said that would Surprize People here; for that Wars never interrupted the Interest nor Principal of Debts, and that he did not See a Difference between this War and any other and the Lawyers here made none. I begged his Pardon here, and Said that the American Lawyers made a Wide Diff[er]ence. They contended that the late War was a total Dissolution of all Laws and Government, and consequently of all Contracts made under those Laws. And that it was a Maxim of Laws that a Personal Right or Obligation, on[ce] dissolved or Suspended, was lost forever: that the Interven[tion] of the Treaty, and the new Laws was necessary for the Revival of those ancient Rights and Obligations. That these Rights we[re] in a State of Non Existence during the War, and no Interest during that Period could grow out of them. These being the opinions in America, it was not probable that any Jury would be found from Georgia to New Hampshi[re] who would give, by their Verdict, Interest to a Creditor, and therefore it was most fair and equitable, that an Explanation Should be made, that the Same Rule of Law might be observed on both Sides. This Observation appeared to Strike him. He Said if there was any danger of this, it would be best that an Explanation Should be made; but th[at] [t]he Ballance of Debts was much in favour of this Country; which I did not deny. But he said the Government would not dare to make it, without previously feeling out the Dispositions of the Persons chiefly interested, and knowing how it would be taken by them. We had a much longer Conversation concerning these Debts and the Difficulty of paying them arising from the Restrictions on our Trade; in which I repeated to him what I had before Said to Lord Carmarthen, and to the Deputies of the Scotch Creditors; but as I have transmitted all that to you before it is unnecessary to repeat it here.

He then began upon the Treaty of Commerce; and asked what was the lowest Terms which would be Satisfactory to America. I answered, that I might not think myself competent to determine that Question. Articles might be proposed to me that I Should not think myself qualified to decide upon, without Writing to Congress. But I would venture so far as to Say, that I thought the Project I had communicated to Lord Carmarthen would give Satisfaction to America, and Secure the Friendship of the United States and the Essence of their Trade to this Country. But that in Proportion as a Plan less liberal was adopted that Friendship would be precarious and that Trade would be Scattered. I added, that the most Judicious Men in America had been long ballancing in their Minds the Advantages and Dissadvantages of a Commerce perfectly free, on one Side, and.of a Navigation Act on the other: that the present time was a critical one: the late Intelligence from all Parts of America concurred, with the Navigation Act of the Massachusetts, in proving which Way the Ballance began to incline; and in my Opinion it would be decided by the conduct of this Country: it was now in his Mr Pitts, Power to decide it. But the more Americans reflected upon the great Advantages which they might derive from a Navigation Act, the more they would become attached to that System. I had heard there were five hundred foreign Ships employed the last Year in the Commerce of the United States: how easy would it be to have all these Ships the Property of American Citizens? and the Navigators of them American Seamen? There was once a Statute in England (that of 5. Ric.2.c.3.) “that none of the Kings liege People Should Ship any Merchandize out of or into the Realm but only in Ships of the Kings ligeance, on pain of Forfeiture.” I asked him what Physical or political Impediment there was to prevent the United States from adopting that very Act, in all its rigour. The Right of every Nation to govern its own Commerce, its own Exports and Imports, would not be denied, nor questioned by any Nation. This he agreed. our Ability to build the Ships and our Abundance of Materials could not be doubted. This he assented to. No Body would pretend that our Produce would not find a Markett in Europe, in our own Ships, or that Europeans would not Sell Us their Manufactures to carry home in them. Even England, if She Should make ever so strict Laws to prevent Exports and Imports in our Bottoms, would still be glad to receive and consume Considerable Quantities of our Produce, tho’ she imported them through France or Holland; and to send Us as many of her Manufactures as We could pay for, through the same channells. He more than Smiled assent to this; for he added that there were American Articles of much Importance to them. But he said that Englishmen were much attached to their Navigation. and Americans too, says I, to theirs. But, Says he, the United States, having now become a foreign Nation, our Navigation Act would not answer its End, if We Should dispense with it towards Y[ou.] Here I begged his Pardon again; for I thought their Navigation Act would compleatly defeat its own End, as far as it respected Us; for the End of the Navigation Act, as expressed in its own Preamble, was to confine the Commerce of the Colonies to the Mother Country: but now We were become independent States, if carried into Execution against Us, instead of confining our Trade to Great Britain, it would drive it to other Countries. This he did not deny[.] But Says he you allow We have a Right. Certainly I do; and You […] will allow We have a Right too. Yes I do; But you cannot blame Englishmen for being attached to their Ships and Seamen, which are So essential to them. Indeed I do not, Sir, nor can you blame Americans for being attached to theirs, which are so much fewer and so much more essential to them.—No, I dont blame them. As this w[as] a very Sprightly Dialogue and in very good Humour, I thought I might push it a little. I will be very frank with you sir Says I, and and I think it will be best for Us to go to the Bottom of these subjects. The Americans think that their Exclusion from Your West India Islands, the Refusal of their Ships and Oyl and other Things, a[nd] their Exclusion from your Colonies on the Continent & Newfound[land,] discovers a Jealousy of their little naval Power and a fixed Sy[mbol] of Policy to prevent the Grouth of it; and this is an Idea that they cannot bear. No, Says he. If We endeavoured to lessen your Shipping and Seamen, without benefiting or increasing our own, it would be hard and unreasonable, and would be a just ground of Uneasiness. But, When We only aim at making the most of our own means and Nurseries, you cannot justly complain. I am happy Sir to hear you avow this Principle, and agree with you perfectly in it.—let Us apply it.—both Parties having the Right and the Power to confine their Exports and Imports to their own Ships and Seamen, if both exercise the Right and Exert the Power in its full Extent, what is the Effect? The commerce must cease between them. Is this eligible for either? To be sure, Says he, We should well consider the Advantages and the Disadvantages in Such a Case. if it is not found to be eligible for either, Says I, after having well considered, what remains but that We Should agree upon a liberal Plan and allow equal freedom to each others Ships and Seamen; especially if it Should be found that this alone can preserve Friendship and good Humour, for I fully believe that this Plan alone can ever put this Nation in good Humour with America, or America with this Country. He then mentioned Ships and Oil. He said We could not think hard of them for encouraging their own Shipwrights, their Manufactures of Ships, and their own Whale Fishery. I answered, by no means; but it appeared unaccountable to the People of America, that this Country Should Sacrifice the general Interest of the Nation to the private Interest of a few Individuals, interested in the Manufacture of Ships and in the whale Fishery; so far as to refuse these Remittances from America, in Payment of Debts, and in Payment for Manufactures; which would employ so many more People, augment the Revenue so considerably, as well as the national Wealth, which would even, in others Ways, So much augment the Shipping and Seamen of the Nation. it was looked upon in America as Reconciling themselves to a diminution of their own Shipping and Seamen, in a great degree, for the Sake of diminishing ours in a Small one; besides keeping many of their Manufacturers out of Employ, who would other wise have enough to do, and besides, greatly diminishing the Revenue, and consequently contrary to the Maxims which he had just acknowledged, that one Nation should not hurt itself, for the sake of hurting another, nor take Measures to deprive another of any Advantage, without benefiting itself.

He then asked if We could grant to England by a Treaty any Advantages which would not immediately become the Right of France? I answered We could not. if the Advantage was Stipulated to England without a Compensation, France would be entituled to it without Compensation: But if it was Stipulated: for an Equivalent or reciprocal Priviledge, France must allow Us the Same Equivalent or reciprocal Priviledge. But, I added, France would not be a very Successfull Rival to Britain in the American Commerce, upon So free a Footing as that of the mutual Liberty of natural born Subjects and Citizens: upon the footing of the most favoured Nation, France would Stand a good Chance in many Things. in Case of mutual Navigation Acts, between Britain and America, France would have more of our Commerce than Britain. in Short Britain would loose and France gain; not only in our Commerce, but our Affections, in proportion as Britain departed from the most liberal System. Upon this He asked a Question which I did not expect.—What do you really think, Sir, that Britain ought to do.? That Question, Sir, may be beyond my Capacity to answer, and my Answer may be Suspected, but, if it is, I will answer it to the best of my Judgment and with perfect Sincerity. I think this Country ought to prescribe to herself no other Rule, but to take from America every Thing She can Send as a Remittance; nay, to take off every Duty, and give every Bounty, that Should be necessary to enable them to Send any Thing as a Remittance.—in this Case, America would prescribe to herself no other Rule than to take of British Productions as much as She could pay for. He might think this no Proof of our Republican Frugality; but Such was the Disposition of our People, and, how much soever I might lament it, I would not disguise it.—He then led me into a long rambling Conversation about our Whale Fishery, and the English Whale Fishery; and the French Whale Fishery that Mr De Calonne is essaying to introduce, too little interresting to be repeated. Yet I should mention, that he asked me a Sudden Question, whether We had taken any Measures to find a Markett for our Oil any wher[e] but in France.—This Question must have been Suggested to him I think, either by Information that our Oil is wanted in some Countries upon the Continent, or by a Suspicion that We have been trying to introduce our Oil into Ireland. I answere[d] that I believed We had, and I had been told that some of our Oil had found a good Markett at Bremen; but there could not be a doubt that Spermaceti Oyl might find a Marke[t] in most of the great Cities of Europe, which were illuminated in the Night, as it is so much better and cheaper than the Vegitab[le] Oil that is commonly used. The Fat of the Spermaceti Whale gives the clearest and most beautifull Flame, of any Substa[nce] that is known in Nature, and We are all Surprized, that you prefer Darkness, and consequent Robberies, Burglaries and Murders in your Streets to the Receiving as a Remittance our Sperma Caeti Oyl. The Lamps around Grosvenor Square I know and in Downing Street I suppose are dim by Midnight, and extinguished by two o clock; whereas our Oyl would burn bright till Nine O Clock in the Morning, and chase away before the Watchmen all the Villains, and save you the Trouble and Danger of introducing a new Police into the City.—

He said He owned he was for taking Advantage of the present Short time of Leisure to mature Some Plan about these Things. I told him I rejoiced to find that was his opinion and that I would be at all times ready to attend him or any other Minister, whenever any Explanation should be wanted from me: that I was anxious for an Answer concerning the Posts, as I was in duty bound to insist on their Evacuation. He Said He thought that connected with Several other Points, and Should be for Settling all these together, So that he must reserve himself at entire Liberty concerning them.

I am Sorry that, in representing all these Conversations, I am obliged to make myself the principal Speaker. But I cannot get them to talk. The Reason is they dare not. all must be determined in the Cabinet, and no Single Minister chooses to commit himself, by giving any opinion, which may be ever quoted to his Disadvantage by any Party. This is not only the State of Mind of every Minister, but of every Ministry. They have an unconquerable Reluctance to deciding upon any Thing, or giving any Answer: and although Mr Pitt and Lord Carmarthen have hazarded opinions upon some Points to me, I dont believe I Shall get any Answer, officially, from the Cabinet or the Minister of foreign Affairs. I wish for an Answer, be it ever so rough or unwise. Mr Pitt I confess was much more open than I expected. He was explicit in my favour, relative to the Negroes, the Armistice, and for digesting the whole in the present Leisure, and giving me an Answer. I should rejoice in a Cabinet Answer to all my Letters, and especially in a Counter Project of a Treaty. But I will be so free to Say I dont expect any Answer at all before next Spring; nor then unless Intelligence Should arrive of all the States adopting a Navigation Act or authorizing Congress to do it; and even in that Case I am inclined to think they will try the Experiment and let our Navigation Acts operate, to Satisfy themselves which People will first roar out with Pain. They deceive themselves Yet in Many Points, which I may enumerate in a future Letter.

From what Mr Pitt Said I am convinced We shall have no Answer concerning the Posts.

With great Respect and Sincere Esteem / I have the Honour to be, sir, your most / obedient and most humble servant

John Adams.

 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

7 Feb. 1786

Dear Sir Paris Feb. 7. 1786

I am honored with yours of Jan. 19. mine of Jan. 12. had not I suppose at that time got to your hands as the receipt of it is unacknoleged. I shall be anxious till I receive your answer to it.

I was perfectly satisfied, before I received your letter, that your opinion had been  misunderstood or misrepresented in the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres. your letter however will enable me to say so with authority. it is proper it should be known that you had not given the opinion imputed to you, tho’ as to the main question it is become useless, Monsieur de Reyneval having assured me that what I had written on that subject had perfectly satisfied the Ct. de Vergennes & himself that this case could never come under the treaty. to evince still further the impropriety of taking up subjects gravely on such imperfect information as this court had, I have this moment received a copy of an act of the Georgia assembly placing the subjects of France as to real estates on the footing of natural citizens & expressly recognizing the treaty. would you think any thing could be added after this to put this question still further out of doors? a gentleman of Georgia assures me General Oglethorpe did not own a foot of land in the state—I do not know whether there has been any American determination on the question whether American citizens & British subjects born before the revolution can be aliens to one another? I know there is an opinion of Ld Coke’s in Calvin’s case that if England & Scotland should in a course of descent pass to separate kings, those born under the same sovereign during the union would remain natural subjects & not aliens. common sense urges strong considerations against this. e. g. natural subjects owe allegiance. but we owe none.—aliens are the subjects of a foreign power we are subjects of a foreign power.—the king by the treaty acknoleges our independance; how then can we remain natural subjects.—the king’s power is by the constitution competent to the making peace, war & treaties. he had therefore authority to relinquish our allegiance by treaty.—but if an act of parliament had been necessary, the parliament passed an act to confirm the treaty. &c &c. so that it appears to me that in this question fictions of law alone are opposed to sound sense.

I am in hopes Congress will send a minister to Lisbon. I know no country with which we are likely to cultivate a more useful commerce. I have pressed this in my private letters.

It is difficult to learn any thing certain here about the French & English treaty. yet, in general, little is expected to be done between them. I am glad to hear that the Delegates of Virginia had made the vote relative to English commerce, tho they afterwards repealed it. I hope they will come to again. when my last letters came away they were engaged in passing the revisal of their laws, with some small alterations. the bearer of this, mr[expansion sign] Lyons, is a sensible worthy young physician, son of one of our Judges, and on his return to Virginia, remember me with affection to mrs[expansion sign] & miss Adams, Colos. Smith & Humphreys and be assured of the esteem with which I am Dr. Sir / Your friend & servant

Th:Jefferson

 Michael DeGray to James Madison

17 Jul. 1825

Sir City of New York: Division Street, No. 198. July 17th. 1825.

We hope you will excuse the freedom of strangers addressing a citizen of the first reputation and whose political merit stands high Excepting with the british party in the united States.

The intention of writing to you was suggested to us by pure love of country or our attachment to a representative government. Therefore it is our belief that you was chosen chief Magistrate of a Federal nation at a time the most critical since the declaration of Independence no man could have had a more difficult task to perform but we conceive that measures must have been conducted Judiciously, or the opposition would have been calculated to frustrate its happy termination at last, but which was effected during your official duties notwithstanding.

But your Successor in office has performed his part in a more singular manner than any President of which you must be very Sensible Here we think he has cultivated a misterious friendship with the british government the great extent of which we are at a loss exactly to comprehend, because with a view to insure its operation a coalition of the parties in one body was deemed necessary however mischievous in its effects confounding the whole under the indefinite term of peoples Men, or party whose design was to abanden the old mode of nominating candidats for offices producing a compleat indecision in the Electoral colleges. Consequently carrying the choice of the chief Magistrate to the hause of Representatives this being the only alternative or provision. It may be considered the death of representation, or its final termination or the pivot where Aristocracy begins. His theory being that parties are unnecessary in our government. See his letter to General Jackson.

Under this administration all true influential characters who defended the Elective representative institutions of the social order are distroyed in their reputation and popularity however honest, or costly it proved to obtain they obtained them you alone sir, have Escaped the general wreck or ruin attendent on adherence to truth or Justice. We have at present no other to address consult or look to. We have lost our solomons and Sampsins. Their hair are all cut and become weak like other men. Yet besides all this there is one trait in James Monroes official performances, that requires special notice nearly at the close of the last term of his office he sends a Presidential invitation to Lay Fayette, to visit the United States on which account he is denominated the Nations guest, of which the british party has made a most tremendous use clothing him with the most Extravagant Panegyricks in every part of the Union which no modest true democratic Republican could condesend to receive

All this parade and flattery, is predicated upon his revolutionary Services upon which we observe that the revolution presented a suitable Theatre, that suited the ardour and ambition of Youth more especially upon condition of receiving a <Major> Generals commission for Military experience.

Notwithstanding it appears that he has heretofore receved Such remunerations as other officers received, which is all that Justice required to be done. Yet he was made the most important article in the Presidents Message and although he made no legal claim yet, by a process of Legislation he recieves a very large and liberal gift from the nations purse. Let us ask you the reason why it is that our national purse is so easily approached by one of the princes of the blood, and all the whole Scene attended with general Ecclat and noise, when a natural born citizen shall exhaust all his resources at a more more recent period as a liberal Benefactor in his countries cause from pure principal and love of country shall be refused even what is Justly due him. Were is that Magnanimity of his country that he was referred to while she was in danger. Alass it flew as quick as that danger disappeared, and instead of any national gift, or satisfaction for legal claims he was calumniated in the most vilest manner in all parts of the Union. by or with means devoid of all foundation Such is the picture of the Still born administration of James Monroe, He himself ceartainly knew the Merits of the Man. Had he taken half the pains to do Justice to Daniel D. Tompkins as he has done to rewards Lay Fayette unnecessarily he might have been our Republican champion still, and instead of his present repose in the grave enjoying the sweets of domestic life with the rest of his cotemporary citizens and in fine it would have prevented that painfull arrangement of suffering his name to be recorded on the list of public Defaulters and read before his face in the Senate.

This example Shews plainly that this rewarding donation to Lay Fayette is a political contrivance and doth not flow from principal It possibly may be as the british party in the united states covered corruption and intrigue under the Name of Washington so likewise under the Name of Lay Fayette, they may try to perform this Same But we rather consider him in his private Sentiment in favour of a limitted Monarchy which constitutes the ultimate object of the british party in the united States.

Uppon the whole, we conclude, that the present Lay Fayette Eulogy, presents the vilest insult to all the true patriots of the late war. That very party that was most vehement in his praise acted in opposition to the late war and styled themselves the peace party This party did all in their power to bring your administration into total ruin and disgrace How absurd then is it to think that they shall have it in their power to brag among themselves how easely they can decieve and flatter the poor silly democrats. Shall it ever be said that Lay Fayette deserved as Much or more praise and rewards than the champions that stood firm during the late war. What an insult to the feelings of those that took a patriotic part, in repulsing the inveterate foe from our dear bought rights. Shall it ever be that the british party shall reign triumphant, and Yoke us again under the power of Aristocracy,

To conclude, we ask you Sir, Can you receive the visit of this European Sycophant, which will come clothed with all hypocracy of the british party whose main designs is to distroy republican Governments in general and that of the United States in particular. How consious how mistrustfull how Jealous should the partisins for a Republic to be when they have the General cuning of Royalty cooperating among them taking every shape for deception.

This letter sir you can answer or not, as you may think proper: but this Much we will assure you that if you should, it shall never find its way at this day, in any public print, we shall not all sign our Names, at present we wish to act still and quiet, not in public Jornals at present but by private letters

Michael DeGray

RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

Vattel’s Law of Nations and the Founding Fathers

Vattel was the key in the United States Constitution in determining the Article 2 Natural Born Citizen clause. Here is a list of the references used by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington in regards to Vattel’s Law of Nations.  This should dispel any notion that the Founding Fathers did not use the Law of Nations as their guide.

 Vattel – John Adams

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=GEWN-search-1&mode=TOC

From Edmund Randolph, 6 May 1793

… refusal of him may bring war upon the U.S., because they cannot, without very particular reasons decline his admission—(See Vattel book. 4. section 65) That the expulsion of the prince is not one of those particular reasons will appear …

 Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on a Cabinet Meeting, 6 May 1793

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) & to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

 Memorandum from Henry Knox, 16 May 1793

… against our sovereignty even to such a degree as to justify a declaration of War unless satisfactory reparation be made—Vattel is explicit upon this subject he says—in Book 3. Chapter 2d Section 15. “As the right of levying soldiers …

 From John Jay, 28 August 1790

… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is …

 To the Cabinet, 3 August 1793

… United States signed with France in 1778, see Miller, Treaties, 3–44. An authority on international law was Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work Le Droit des gens: ou, Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite & aux affaires …

 To Thomas Jefferson, 4 August 1793

… had with France, Great Britain, and other nations, see Miller, Treaties, 3–244. The other reference is to Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the Conduct and to …

 To Robert Cary & Company, 6 October 1773

… the Nature and Immutability of Truth; Thomas Reid, Inquiry into the Human Mind; Adam Ferguson, Institutes of Moral Philosophy; Vattel, Laws of Nations; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli au Paces; George Turnbull, Principles of Moral Philosophy; David Fordyce, Elements …

 Enclosure Questions for the Supreme Court, 18 July 1793

… all with France, see Miller, Treaties, 3–47, 228–44. This is probably a reference to principles contained in Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work, The Law of Nations; or the Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the conduct and …

 Enclosure: Answers to Questions proposed by the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury., 15 September 1790

… Law of War and Peace through Barbeyrac’s work, cited in n.3 above (see Syrett, Hamilton Papers 7:39, n.5). For Vattel’s Law of Nations, see John Jay to GW, 28 Aug. 1790, n.2. Hamilton’s footnote, “Puffendorfs Law of Nature & …

 Memorandum from Alexander Hamilton, 15 May 1793

… 26:197–99; see also JPP, 156–57, 159. Throughout the debates over U.S. neutrality policy, cabinet members referred to Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, first published in French in 1758 and in English in 1760. Although the Treaty of …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=ADMS-search-1&mode=TOC

12th.

… with the other volumes. In the afternoon I took up Vattels’ law of nature and of nations. Emmerich de Vattel, Le droit des gens; ou, principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations …

 15th.

15th. Dined with Townsend and Thomson at Mr. Parsons’s. I finished this day the first volume of Vattel. The first book treats of the duties of a nation with respect to itself: the second of its obligations …

 22d.

22d. This forenoon I finish’d Vattel. The third book treats of War, and the fourth of Peace; much in the same manner as he treats …

 I. Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s First Message, 26 January 1773

… June 1680, Henings Statutes, 2:466–469. In his address of 6 Jan., Hutchinson had quoted this passage from Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 III. Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s Second Message, 2 March 1773

… Mass., Province Laws, 3:118. For the background of this legislation, see Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 2:298–300. That is, Vattel. See No. I, note 12, above. These passages are taken from the second of John Locke’s Two Treatises of …

 From James Lovell, 1 January 1778

… been greatly wanted upon a most important transaction. We have had a call for your stores of Grotius Puffendorf Vattel &c. &c. &c. to support reason and commonsense or to destroy both, just as your Honour and Da– and …

 Editorial Note

… absolute. In a passage strongly reminiscent of his writs of assistance argument, Otis cited the Swiss publicist Emmerich de Vattel, as well as Bonham’s Case and other common law precedents, for the proposition that Parliament could not make a …

 To Richard Henry Lee, 15 March 1780

… I, f. 211–217; Morison, John Paul Jones, p. 355– 356). In support of his position Franklin cited Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 To the President of Congress, No. 40, 10 April 1780

… on the law of nations, but it did no more than explicitly state what was already implied (Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 Jean Henri David Uhl to John Adams: A Translation, 1 July 1782

… it was contraband, was free or not subject to seizure wherever found, even on an enemy ship (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principals of Natural Law, bk. 3, ch. 7, § 115–116). Thus when a …

 Editorial Note

… a specialized approach to the questions of prize: R. Lee, Treatise of Captures in War (London, 1759); Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (London, 1760). See Minutes, 13 Sept. 1783, DNA Microcopy 162, Case 30. No authorities appear in …

 Vattel – Thomas Jefferson

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-1&mode=TOC&#match

 To George Hammond, 29 May 1792

… choses dont le Traité ne dit rien, doivent demeurer dans l’etat où elles se trouvent lors de sa conclusion. Vattel. L. 4. §. 21. ‘De quibus nihil dictum, ea manerit quo sunt loco,’ Wolf. 1222. No alterations then are …

 Editorial Note: Jefferson’s Opinion on the Treaties with France

… But Randolph wavered when Hamilton offered to produce a citation from that formidable authority on international law, Emmerich de Vattel’s Le Droit des Gens (1758), in support of his position that a treaty might under certain circumstances be suspended …

 I. Notes on Washington’s Questions on Neutrality and the Alliance with France, [before 28 April 1793]

… free goods et econtre. free commerce to places not besieged. certificate of officer of convoy prevents searches. contraband defined. Vattel. 2. 157. the validity of treaties / 158. lezion does not annul them. / 159. duties of nations in …

 II. Notes for Opinion on the Treaty of Alliance with France, [before 28 April 1793]

… self-libern without just cause or compensn gives cause of war to France. Examine Authorities.—how far they weigh.—danger of understg. Vattel witht restrn. Grotius—Puff.—Wolf— Vattel Vattel . 2. 160.        158. <159.> 163. 219. 220. <233.> [Lengthwise in the …

 IV. Opinion on the Treaties with France, 28 April 1793

… Certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems to be said in an authority which has been quoted. Vattel. 2.197. And tho he may under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be imminent, and the degree …

 List of Books Sold to James Monroe, [10 May 1784]

… Oeuvres de Mably. 4.v. 1. 1. / Entretiens de Phocion 4. / Recherches sur les Americains. 3.v. 16. / Vattel 1. 16. / Epoques de la nature 2. v. 11. / Maniere de jouer aux echecs 6. / Oeuvres …

 From Edmund Randolph, with a Memorandum by Jefferson, 9 February 1781

… a Memorandum by Jefferson Sir February 9. 1781. As your excellency and the council probably have not access to Vattel, on whose doctrines this hasty answer is founded, I shall inclose the paragraph from his work, which treats of …

 Report on Negotiations with Spain, 18 March 1792

… and without having declared any: but on the contrary, conducting herself in other respects as a friend and associate. Vattel. L. 3. 122. It is an established principle that Conquest gives only an inchoate right, which does not become …

 To James Madison, 28 April 1793

… have been seriously proposed to declare our treaties with France void on the authority of an ill-understood scrap in Vattel 2.§.197. [‘toutefois si ce changement &c—gouvernement’] and that it should be necessary to discuss it?—Cases are now arising which …

 From Edmund Randolph, 9 February 1781

… made by the unarmed countrymen, I am inclined to think, that I was inaccurate. As well as I recollect, Vattel was said to be against their claim; but that daily usage was in favor of it. So far perhaps …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-2&mode=TOC&#match

 To Thomas Newton, Jr., 8 September 1791

… 202–3). In laying down general principles only, TJ had the support of three wellknown authorities—Abraham de Wicquefort, Emmerich de Vattel, and Wyndham Beawes—among whom only Vattel argued that consuls “must be accorded, to a certain extent, the …

 II. Arguments by James Wilson and William Samuel Johnson before the Court of Commissioners, [14–23 December 1782]

… made to the Dutch possessions. We must discover the thoughts of those who make Contracts 2 Blacstone 295. 2 Vattel §270. 2 Hutchinson history Massa. 387. Interpretation must be rational 2 Rutherford—chapter Interpretation. 1 Blacstone 59. 2 Bacon abrid. …

 From Thomas Pinckney, 27 August 1793

… Court of Admiralty’s dismissal of Wilson’s suit against the Centurion’s captain was presumably based on the principle expressed by Vattel that the captain had acted in ignorance of the cessation of hostilities, even though Vattel maintained that …

 Alexander Hamilton’s Notes on Jefferson’s Letter to George Hammond, with Jefferson’s Response, [20–27 May 1792]

… have a knowledge of the transaction from it’s first embryon to it’s perfection. They are the ‘parties contractantes’ of Vattel and the ‘paciscentes’ of Wolf cited §. 48. Tho’ they do not transact the business in person, but by …

 Edmund Randolph’s Opinion on the Grange, 14 May 1793

… a country in order to settle there, it possesses every thing included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers” &c. Vattel. b.1.c.22. §.266. To this list might be added Bynkershoek and Selden. But the dissertation of the former de dominio …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, 17 June 1793

… what that law and usage is. Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested Judges. None is more so than Vattel. He says L. 3. §. 104. “Tant qu’un peuple neutre veut jouïr surement de cet état, il doit montrer …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, [ca. 16 July 1793]

… unfortunate in your estimation. You are pleased to consider us as bringing forward diplomatic subleties, and the aphorisms of Vattel, to justify infractions of positive treaties. I shall agree with you that reason is the only rightful umpire between …

 XII. Opinion of the Chief Justice, 28 August 1790

… within two Classes vizt. cases of urgent necessity, and Cases of Convenience. The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel, who well understood the subject, says in the 7th: chapter of his 3d. Book: That an innocent Passage is …

 XV. Opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, 15 September 1790

… Peace Book II Chap II § xiii No. 1.2.3.4. Book III Chap: VII § 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. Vattel Book III Chap VII Section 127. France has made us one loan since the peace. MS (DLC: Washington Papers). …

 Notes on Washington’s Questions on Neutrality and the Alliance with France, [6 May 1793]

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) and to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-3&mode=TOC&#match

  From James Madison, 8 May 1793

… at the time have been put on them. The attempt to shuffle off the Treaty altogether by quibbling on Vattel is equally contemptible for the meanness and folly of it. If a change of Government is an absolution from …

 To William G. Munford, 27 February 1799

… in the catalogue [you sent me] as could be found here. these are Stewart’s philosophy of the human mind. Vattel’s law of nations. Smith’s wealth of nations. Nicholson’s philosophy {}to these I have added Chipman’s sketches on government Condorcet’s …

 Notes on John Jay’s Mission to Great Britain, [1797 or after]

… He says also that in conformity to what was mentioned by Mr. Jay he has used the words of Vattel. As to the article about impressment he says ‘he sees no reason whatever to object to this article.’ / …

 To James Madison, 3 August 1793

… vulnerable points, well struck, stab the party vitally.—3. lights from the law of nations on the constructions of treaties. Vattel has been most generally the guide, Bynkershoeck often quoted, Wolf sometimes. 4. no call was made by any power …

 IV. Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 16 August 1793

… law of nations, founded on the general sense and usage of mankind, we have produced proofs, from theJune 17. Vattel L.3.§.104. most enlightened and approved writers on the subject, that a neutral nation must, in all things relating to …

 To Ferdinando Fairfax, 25 April 1794

… to discuss the opinions of Home and Young, than my friend Genet did the worm-eaten aphorisms of Grotius and Vattel. In the mean time I have the honor to be with sentiments of great esteem Dear Sir your most …

 Enclosure II: Considerations on a Convention with Spain, 22 March 1792

… One writer extends the exception to atrocious criminals, too imminently dangerous to Society. Namely to Pirates, Murderers, and Incendiaries. Vattel. L. V. § 233. The punishment of Piracy, being provided for by our law, need not be so by …

 From Edmund Randolph, 30 January 1784

… be convinced of Hancock’s guilt before they could deliver him up. This scruple originated from the 76th. section of Vattel’s 2d. book. But the quotation of a practice in Switzerland which deprives the canton, within whose reach an offender …

 To John Garland Jefferson, 11 June 1790

… Spirit of laws. / Blackstone. / Virginia laws. Smith’s wealth of nations. / Beccaria. / Kaim’s moral essays. / Vattel’s law of nations / Should there be any little intervals in the day not otherwise occupied fill them up …

 From Thomas Pinckney, 5 July 1793

… was justifiable when there was a hope of reducing an enemy by famine (for a translation, see Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-4&mode=TOC&#match

 Course of Reading for William G. Munford, [5 December 1798]

… Practice in Chancery / Wythe’s reports. Schomberg’s hist. of [Civ. 1.] / Washington’s reports. Molloy de Jure [Mar.] / Vattel. / [Fine Arts] from [XII.] to II. Moral Philosophy [from?] […]& [night?] / Lowthe’s grammar Condorcet’s Progress of the …

 A Course of Reading for Joseph C. Cabell, September 1800

… human life. 12mo. Gregory’s legacy. 12mo. Gregory’s comparative view. 12 mo. Ld. Bacon’s essays. 12 mo. L. of nations. Vattel. Droit des gens. 4to. Droit des gens moderne par martens. 2 v. {12mo. Religion. Paley’s evidences. 8vo. Middleton’s Miscelli …

 From James Madison, 9 January 1785

… contended that such surrenders were unknown to the law of nations, and were interdicted by our declaration of Rights. Vattel however is express as to the case of Robbers, murderers and incendiaries. Grotius quotes various instances in which great …

 To John Jay, 21 June 1787

… sang répandus pour venger l’injure faite a quelqu’un de ces hommes revêtus d’un ministere national.” Grotius, Bodin, Montesquieu, and Vattel were appealed to in support of the view that the ambassador, representing his sovereign in a foreign state, must …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, [15–22 November 1793]

… are worm-eaten, or hired. It will be acknoleged that you have never troubled us with quotations from Grot. Puff. Vattel or any other authority antient or recent. Had you endeavored to learn from these respected authors what the rest …

 Vattel – George Washington

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=GEWN-search-1&mode=TOC&#match

From Edmund Randolph, 6 May 1793

… refusal of him may bring war upon the U.S., because they cannot, without very particular reasons decline his admission—(See Vattel book. 4. section 65) That the expulsion of the prince is not one of those particular reasons will appear …

 Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on a Cabinet Meeting, 6 May 1793

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) & to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

 Memorandum from Henry Knox, 16 May 1793

… against our sovereignty even to such a degree as to justify a declaration of War unless satisfactory reparation be made—Vattel is explicit upon this subject he says—in Book 3. Chapter 2d Section 15. “As the right of levying soldiers …

 From John Jay, 28 August 1790

… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is …

 To the Cabinet, 3 August 1793

… United States signed with France in 1778, see Miller, Treaties, 3–44. An authority on international law was Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work Le Droit des gens: ou, Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite & aux affaires …

 To Thomas Jefferson, 4 August 1793

… had with France, Great Britain, and other nations, see Miller, Treaties, 3–244. The other reference is to Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the Conduct and to …

 To Robert Cary & Company, 6 October 1773

… the Nature and Immutability of Truth; Thomas Reid, Inquiry into the Human Mind; Adam Ferguson, Institutes of Moral Philosophy; Vattel, Laws of Nations; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli au Paces; George Turnbull, Principles of Moral Philosophy; David Fordyce, Elements …

 Enclosure Questions for the Supreme Court, 18 July 1793

… all with France, see Miller, Treaties, 3–47, 228–44. This is probably a reference to principles contained in Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work, The Law of Nations; or the Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the conduct and …

 Enclosure: Answers to Questions proposed by the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury., 15 September 1790

… Law of War and Peace through Barbeyrac’s work, cited in n.3 above (see Syrett, Hamilton Papers 7:39, n.5). For Vattel’s Law of Nations, see John Jay to GW, 28 Aug. 1790, n.2. Hamilton’s footnote, “Puffendorfs Law of Nature & …

 Memorandum from Alexander Hamilton, 15 May 1793

… 26:197–99; see also JPP, 156–57, 159. Throughout the debates over U.S. neutrality policy, cabinet members referred to Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, first published in French in 1758 and in English in 1760. Although the Treaty of …

Vattel – Ratification

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=RNCN-search-1&mode=TOC

 Convention Debates

… a confederation of states. (8) Sovereignty is in the states and not in the people in its exercise. (9) Vattel’s description of sovereignty—it belonged originally to the body of the society (Vat. page 9. of the Sovereign). (10) …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… marginal notes] Sovereignty Vat. p. 5. s. 2 Lock, p. 2, s. 149, 227. Bl. 245. 161. 162. Confederacy, Vattel p. 11. s. 10 Mont. b. 9. c. 1. A general inconsistency between this reasoning and that against the …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… 2. [Montesquieu, I, 11–18.] “The People, in whom the Supreme Power resides.” (51) Vat. b. 1. s. 1. 2. [Vattel, 15–16.] “Sovereignty.” (52) The sovereignty is essentially in the people; but is vested in a senate or a monarch. …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… closed his arguments in opposition to the proposed federal system. [Dallas’ Debates, Pennsylvania Herald, 15 December] Findley: Sovereignty. Vat. [Vattel] p. 9. 19. Locke, on Gov. [II] c. 13 [chapter XIII]. There is but one supreme power, viz., the …

 Symbols

… Ithaca, N.Y., 1930–1971). Thorpe Francis N. Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions … (7 vols., Washington, D.C., 1909). Vattel Emerich de Vattel , The Law of Nations … (Dublin, 1792). Cross-references CC Commentaries on the Constitution: Public …

 George Clinton’s Remarks Against Ratifying the Constitution, 11 July 1788

… persons, having a will of their own and equal rights—that these rights are freedom, sovereignty, and independence. The celebrated Vattel treating on this subject, observes “that power or weakness does not in this respect produce any difference. A dwarf …

Constitutional Points to Ponder

As the US Constitution states as requirement for the Presidency.

Eligibility

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

  • be a natural born citizen of the United States;
  • be at least thirty-five years old;
  • have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Foreign-born Americans who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted were also eligible to become President, provided they met the age and residency requirements. However, this allowance has since become obsolete.

No we know the definition and intent of a “Natural Born Citizen” as per the Framers and Founding Fathers.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

As I have stated before and will state here again.  Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,  “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Now ponder these Constitutional points as we review the above information.

“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
– Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442

“It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional.”
– Harris V. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980) (USSC+)

“Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.”
-Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury V. Madison,1Cr.137

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
— John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802

“Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
— Alexander Hamilton

We do NOT need the birth certificate or certification of live birth, Obama is NOT eligible as per the US Constitution, and as such he IS nothing but a Usurper.  Nothing that has done, doing, or will do, will attempt is legal and binding, as per the United States Constitution.

Natural Born Citizen legally defined

There has been much debate as to whether the term “Natural Born Citizen” has ever been legally defined or will some court have to finally define it, such as the Supreme Court of the United States.  The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for only two positions within our government, President and Vice-President.  What did the Founding Father’s and Framers of the United States Constitution mean to do or accomplish by placing this requirement for the highest office?

First off, let us look at what the Framer’s used as a guide.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution. 

The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz’s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“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. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) 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”?

I am sure most reading this will know who Benjamin Franklin was. However one reference will not squell the unbelief that Vattel’s Laws of Nations, is not clear enough. So do a search on Laws of Nations and you will get HUNDREDS of responses. http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html This from the Library of Congress.  Another excellent post is the following; The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, “The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a “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.” However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall

Again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

As I have stated before and will state here again.  Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,  “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following; 

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3]
LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
[Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
New York 25 July 1787

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

“The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

Should any court finally decide that there IS ample evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States, they will have to rely on Vattel as the defining definition and argument, and stare reality in the face that not only is Barack Obama unqualified, but that he is not even a US Citizen.

As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 3]
Saturday, June 21, 1788.

Page 564

There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

Allow me to make one more reference;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.

Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.

 

Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers