Leo Donofrio

Post Reply
twinx
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:45 am

Leo Donofrio

#1

Post by twinx » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:54 am

He's been 'resting' since September 3, 2010 (the date of the last post on his blog), but he's back.What's got his goat is Jeff Toobin's comments to [link]Anderson Cooper,http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/v ... n-montana/[/link] the other day. Toobin mis-stated the de Vattelite's claims by saying: “What Vattel said was natural born citizens means you were born in the United States and your parents are also born in the United States.”Donfrio says this is wrong, wrong, wrong, (obviously), but I'll leave it to the lawyers to go over and see if there's anything new in his legal analysis.Then there's this:Toobin has therefore issued clearly false legal statements. Either these are lies for propaganda purposes, or he’s just a terrible legal analyst.If Anderson Cooper would like to have a serious debate between myself and Toobin, or any other so called “Senior Legal Analyst”, I would be happy to oblige.And if legislators in the State of Montana – or any other state – would like legal guidance on this issue, I would also be happy to oblige.[/break1]wordpress.com/2011/02/16/jeffrey-toobin-issued-false-legal-statements-to-anderson-cooper-regarding-vattel-and-the-14th-amendment/]http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... amendment/



BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Leo Donofrio

#2

Post by BFB » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:51 am

He's been 'resting' since September 3, 2010 (the date of the last post on his blog), but he's back.What's got his goat is Jeff Toobin's comments to [link]Anderson Cooper,http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/v ... n-montana/[/link] the other day. Toobin mis-stated the de Vattelite's claims by saying: “What Vattel said was natural born citizens means you were born in the United States and your parents are also born in the United States.”Donfrio says this is wrong, wrong, wrong, (obviously), but I'll leave it to the lawyers to go over and see if there's anything new in his legal analysis.Then there's this:Toobin has therefore issued clearly false legal statements. Either these are lies for propaganda purposes, or he’s just a terrible legal analyst.If Anderson Cooper would like to have a serious debate between myself and Toobin, or any other so called “Senior Legal Analyst”, I would be happy to oblige.And if legislators in the State of Montana – or any other state – would like legal guidance on this issue, I would also be happy to oblige.[/break1]wordpress.com/2011/02/16/jeffrey-toobin-issued-false-legal-statements-to-anderson-cooper-regarding-vattel-and-the-14th-amendment/]http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... amendment/Translation: "Please! Someone pay attention to me!!!"



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35857
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Leo Donofrio

#3

Post by Addie » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:52 am

Toobin flubbed that one, but that is what Wagner was saying and what some other birthers have claimed.“What Vattel said was natural born citizens means you were born in the United States and your parents are also born in the United States.”[/break1]wordpress.com/2011/02/16/jeffrey-toobin-issued-false-legal-statements-to-anderson-cooper-regarding-vattel-and-the-14th-amendment/]http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... amendment/


Democracy is a garden that has to be tended. -Barack Obama

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17036
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Leo Donofrio

#4

Post by Suranis » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:08 am

Pretty much, but also that such people have a proven line going right back to the founding without any ancestor born outside the country.It would also disqualify any babies born to any emigrants, even if one parent was an NBC.It would also disqualify any children born to a white owner and a slave who was raised by the slave owner.On the minus side it would mean that Sarah Palin could not run against Obama :cry:


Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

#5

Post by bob » Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:18 pm

New post by Donofrio: [/break1]wordpress.com/2011/02/21/shame-on-the-state-department-the-mario-marroquin-story-how-war-veterans-and-other-citizens-born-in-a-house-are-denied-passorts-despite-having-birth-certificates]SHAME ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT: The Mario Marroquin Story – How War Veterans and Other Citizens “Born In A House” Are Denied Passorts Despite Having Birth Certificates.Executive summary: Texan born at home denied a U.S. passport because his birth wasn't properly registered. From that, many irrational leaps of logic ensue.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Leo Donofrio

#6

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:32 pm

No indication that Mr. Marroquin has followed the procedures set forth in the Texas Health and Safety Code, Sec. 192.001 through 192.027, for a delayed registration of his birth. There is a provision allowing him to establish a record of his date of birth, place of birth and parentage via order issued by the county probate court of the county where he was born. Perhaps Mr. Marroquin could be directed to a legal aid or law school clinic that can assist him with this process.





Shame on Leo Donofrio for not researching the law. I found the applicable law with a 0.30 second Google search for "texas statutes birth registration."
















Edit: The Paraclete is a little late to the party. This story was first reported on August 15, 2008 -- when a [highlight]Texan[/highlight] was in the White House.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Soviet Canukistan
Contact:

Leo Donofrio

#7

Post by Hektor » Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:39 pm

While President Obama has not offered a single document to prove that he wasn’t born in a house,The President has also failed to provide a single document that prove that he wasn't hatched under a troll bridge.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

#8

Post by bob » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:58 pm

Executive summary: Texan born at home denied a U.S. passport because his birth wasn't properly registered. From that, many irrational leaps of logic ensue.From [/break1]wordpress.com/2011/02/21/shame-on-the-state-department-the-mario-marroquin-story-how-war-veterans-and-other-citizens-born-in-a-house-are-denied-passorts-despite-having-birth-certificates/#comment-16412]the comments:The articles cited in this posted are dated 2008; it is indeed a shame that George W. Bush’s State Department treated this veteran so poorly.As the articles indicate, Marroquin’s birth was not properly registered with the governmental authorities. Perhaps he needs a crack attorney to guide him through the process.ed. Cornyn sent the letter regarding his inquiry just four days before Obama was inaugurated. Nothing has happened since. Furthermore it is well documented that the Obama administration continued the policy of denying passports to all persons born to midwives in Texas and California. Silvario Vasquez was drafted at the height of Vietnam based upon such a BC but was initially denied a passport. Furthermore, you cannot submit a COLB from Texas or California to this day and expect to get a passport from the Obama administration. Read the whole article next time. It’s about bureaucratic hypocrisy.If a Texas COLB isn’t good enough for Obama, why should OBama’s COLB be good enough for Texas? – Leo


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34969
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Leo Donofrio

#9

Post by realist » Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:09 pm

Furthermore, you cannot submit a COLB from Texas or California to this day and expect to get a passport from the Obama administration. Read the whole article next time. It’s about bureaucratic hypocrisy.If a Texas COLB isn’t good enough for Obama, why should OBama’s COLB be good enough for Texas? – Leohmmmmmmm... if I needed a passport I'd test Ol'e Leo on that one. Mine certainly worked in the past, and it was Bush's administration that would not issue the BC, not Obama's, initially.I suspect the gentleman could obtain a passport of he'd get the damn registration done properly.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

#10

Post by bob » Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:53 pm

My fave bit:


ANOTHER RED FLAG = birth records registered a few days after birth.





President Obama’s COLB has just such a red flag. According to his COLB, he was born on August 4th, 1961. But that same COLB lists “date filed by registrar” as August 8th, 1961. Since his COLB is delayed by less than one year, the State Department won’t automatically reject it as a fraud, but it’s still a red flag.So: Obama born after COB on a Friday; paperwork processed on the following Monday; filed with the state on Tuesday.





HUUUUUUUUGE red flag there!








The subject of Donofrio's rant, [/break1]kget.com/news/local/story/Veteran-denied-passport/Q-nxIF0c1k2EVVe8uRihag.cspx]Esmerelda Cazares, has a "delayed registration" birth certificate because she was delivered not at a hospital, but by a midwife. The story doesn't indicate the time between birth and registration, but does explain why a midwife was used: her parents were afraid to go to the hospital because they were not in the country legally. (Funny how Donofrio forget to mention that to the birthers, who just lurve illegals and anchor babies!)








And, Donofrio, being the big fan of U.S. Constitution that he is, held my comment in moderation, then deleted it.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12288
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Leo Donofrio

#11

Post by Whatever4 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:52 am

My fave bit:ANOTHER RED FLAG = birth records registered a few days after birth.President Obama’s COLB has just such a red flag. According to his COLB, he was born on August 4th, 1961. But that same COLB lists “date filed by registrar” as August 8th, 1961. Since his COLB is delayed by less than one year, the State Department won’t automatically reject it as a fraud, but it’s still a red flag.So: Obama born after COB on a Friday; paperwork processed on the following Monday; filed with the state on Tuesday.HUUUUUUUUGE red flag there!snip..snip...Huh? That makes no sense. Registered within 4 days is delayed? (I can't read his site, the black background drives me batty.) The other Hawaiian BCs we've seen are around that. They don't even get marked as late for 30 days, delayed over a year.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

#12

Post by bob » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:34 pm

Huh? That makes no sense.Yes; Donofrio is just playing both sides of the street. He acknowledges that Hawaii says Obama was born there, but is trying to cast doubt by the "fact" that the registration of Obama's birth was "delayed" ... by 4 days.





Donofrio is "just asking hard questions" about why this "delay" is acceptable but other delays (referencing a Texan whose birth was never registered and a Californian whose "delayed registration" birth certificate was rejected by the U.S. State Department) are not. (Hint: Apples and oranges are indeed by spherical sweet fruits, but their similarities end there.)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

#13

Post by bob » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:29 pm

Donofrio's back in the game!; latest: [/break1]wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-scrubbing-of-america-how-professor-lawrence-solum-disgraced-himself-to-protect-obamas-eligibility/]THE SCRUBBING OF AMERICA: How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced Himself To Protect Obama’s Eligibility.





Donofrio haz madz because [/break1]law.illinois.edu/lsolum/cv.pdf]Solum wrote in [/break1]michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf]2008:


What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parent[highlight]s[/highlight] are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen.’But in the [/break1]ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885&amp]2010 version of this article, Solum wrote:


What was the original public meaning of the enigmatic phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning: some cases of inclusion and exclusion seem indisputable. As a matter of inclusion, [highlight]anyone born on American soil with an American parent is clearly a "natural born citizen."[/highlight] As a matter of exclusion, anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of "naturalization" is clearly not a "natural born citizen." But these clear cases of inclusion and exclusion do not exhaust the possibilities.Donofrio contends (and I do not doubt) Solum dropped a footnote explaining:


In an earlier version of this article, I used the phrase “whose parents are citizens of the United States.” [highlight]Some readers have misread the original as implying that someone born of only one American parent on American soil is not a “natural born citizen.”[/highlight] That reading ignores the context of the original sentence, which was meant to provide a case where “natural born citizen” status was indisputable… Based on my reading of the historical sources, [highlight]there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a “natural born citizen…”[/highlight]But Encylopedia Donofrio is on the case!:


I spoke with Amy Murphy, Editor In Chief of the Michigan Law Review this morning. She informed me that they have a general policy of not publishing revisions of articles they have previously published. I also informed her in detail about the scrubbing by Solum. [...] he informed me that the Michigan Law Review has “no comment”.Donofrio concludes with his opinion on Solum's "scrubbing":


That’s intellectual cowardice and it’s also a professional disgrace.Yet "intellectual cowardice" is exact phrase I used (just this morning!) in calling out Donofrio in deleting posts that proved him wrong!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

DeeLite
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:56 am

Leo Donofrio

#14

Post by DeeLite » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:03 pm

Executive summary: Texan born at home denied a U.S. passport because his birth wasn't properly registered. From that, many irrational leaps of logic ensue.From [/break1]wordpress.com/2011/02/21/shame-on-the-state-department-the-mario-marroquin-story-how-war-veterans-and-other-citizens-born-in-a-house-are-denied-passorts-despite-having-birth-certificates/#comment-16412]the comments:The articles cited in this posted are dated 2008; it is indeed a shame that George W. Bush’s State Department treated this veteran so poorly.As the articles indicate, Marroquin’s birth was not properly registered with the governmental authorities. Perhaps he needs a crack attorney to guide him through the process.ed. Cornyn sent the letter regarding his inquiry just four days before Obama was inaugurated. Nothing has happened since. Furthermore it is well documented that the Obama administration continued the policy of denying passports to all persons born to midwives in Texas and California. Silvario Vasquez was drafted at the height of Vietnam based upon such a BC but was initially denied a passport. Furthermore, you cannot submit a COLB from Texas or California to this day and expect to get a passport from the Obama administration. Read the whole article next time. It’s about bureaucratic hypocrisy.If a Texas COLB isn’t good enough for Obama, why should OBama’s COLB be good enough for Texas? – Leodonofrio also forgets that TEXAS (and California) were subjects of high potential of birth registration frauds by MIDWIVES, which is why those states have a higher chance of fraudulent birth registrations and their COLB's would be questioned.The other 48 states have no problem.



User avatar
Sequoia32
Posts: 4742
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 pm

Leo Donofrio

#15

Post by Sequoia32 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:06 pm

Birth certificate fraud booms at border/`Midwives offer access to U.S. citizenshipJAMES PINKERTON, Houston Chronicle Rio Grande Valley Bureau StaffSUN 12/08/1996 HOUSTON CHRONICLE BROWNSVILLE - They've dubbed her the ""mother of all midwives," and authorities believe she may have filed more phony birth certificates than anyone in Texas history.Brownsville midwife Margarita Garcia-Rojas, 61, filed 3,400 birth certificates between 1985 and 1996. The Immigration and Naturalization Service says that is an unbelievable number, and suspect that many of those certificates are fraudulent.""That's almost like delivering a baby a day for 10 years," said Gilbert Trevino, the special agent who headed a four-year investigation into the matter for the INS.[/break1]chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1996_1382428/birth-certificate-fraud-booms-at-border-midwives-o.html]http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archi ... ves-o.html


So far every case of Ebola in this country got it by helping people. So relax, Republicans, you're in the clear. - Tina Dupuy

User avatar
P.K.
Posts: 801
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning.
Occupation: Actor. Legal Secretary. Cat Servant.
Contact:

Leo Donofrio

#16

Post by P.K. » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:42 am

Furthermore, you cannot submit a COLB from Texas or California to this day and expect to get a passport from the Obama administration. Read the whole article next time. It’s about bureaucratic hypocrisy.If a Texas COLB isn’t good enough for Obama, why should OBama’s COLB be good enough for Texas? – Leohmmmmmmm... if I needed a passport I'd test Ol'e Leo on that one. Mine certainly worked in the past, and it was Bush's administration that would not issue the BC, not Obama's, initially.I suspect the gentleman could obtain a passport of he'd get the damn registration done properly.No, what the Passport Office won't accept is an "Abstract of Records" from Texas or California. When I requested copies of BC's for my husband and two stepkids from the State of California, for some reason I received an Abstract for my stepson, and certified photocopies of the Certificates of Live Birth for my husband and stepdaughter. The Abstract does not have all the information that a COLB like Hawaii's has, which is why you can't use it to get a passport.


IANALBIPOOTV - I am not a lawyer, but I've played one on TV. In fact, IANA (fill in the blank) but chances are I've played one on TV.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

#17

Post by bob » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:59 pm

From [/break1]wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-scrubbing-of-america-how-professor-lawrence-solum-disgraced-himself-to-protect-obamas-eligibility/#comment-16519]the comments:Wouldn’t a good definition of “intellectual cowardice” be someone who is so scared of actual debate that he deletes the comments that prove him wrong?ed. That assumes there are comments that “prove” him wrong. And so far I haven’t come across any.But as to your comments not being posted, try being courteous to the author of this blog, removing insults against other readers and removing blatant lies. There are dissenting voices in these comments but they all have two things in common – courtesy and a genuine question. ie Gorefan who obviously has done much research and who is also courteous. I don’t agree with him at all, but he’s posted many counter arguments as have others.[...]But your manner and rudeness indicate a person who was not sincerely interested in debate but rather someone with an agenda. Regardless, I did not post your question because you were rude and insulting, not because I didn’t have very simple fact based refutation. The same refutation that was in the original article.This question was asked in a courteous manner and so it was posted. New comments will be posted as long as they respect the forum and are designed to instigate honest debate. The fact that I have responded to this comment is proof of the integrity of the blog and the rules.So I posted a comment refuting various points made Donofrio; Donofrio (waaaaaaaait for it!) just deleted it.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45279
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Leo Donofrio

#18

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:03 pm

[-X bob - "refuting various points made by Donofrio = rudeness indicat[ing] a person who was not sincerely interested in debate." Only those who agree with Donofrio are "seriously interested in debate" and are not being "rude." Because Donofrio is right and does not have an agenda.



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Leo Donofrio

#19

Post by TollandRCR » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:02 am

Prof. Solum's method of amending his article does not meet the standards of scholarship that I learned. It is not acceptable to change the text of a published article when it is republished in a venue other than the original venue and explain that change by way of a footnote that is devoid of citations. In my view, he owes the Michigan Law Review the submission of a Note, a Response, or another First Impressions article expanding on his point in footnote 3. Otherwise, this is just sloppy scholarship. I would have expected better from a former Editor of the Harvard Law Review.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
wavey davey
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:01 pm

Leo Donofrio

#20

Post by wavey davey » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:32 pm

Furthermore, you cannot submit a COLB from Texas or California to this day and expect to get a passport from the Obama administration. Read the whole article next time. It’s about bureaucratic hypocrisy.If a Texas COLB isn’t good enough for Obama, why should OBama’s COLB be good enough for Texas? – Leohmmmmmmm... if I needed a passport I'd test Ol'e Leo on that one. Mine certainly worked in the past, and it was Bush's administration that would not issue the BC, not Obama's, initially.I suspect the gentleman could obtain a passport of he'd get the damn registration done properly.Hey Leo,In 2009, I used a COLB from Texas to get my new passport.I actually have my old photo copy "long form" that I got in 1977, but after all the birther nonsense, I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen with a more recent copy. Texas, like Hawaii, no longer gives out "long form" copies, only extracts which are pretty much the same as the Hawaiian short form. (In reality, it's a little more complicated than that - depending on the year of your birth, you can still get a long form - in my case, no.)In spite of all the birther idiots who insisted that you cannot even register to play Little League without a long form, I was able to get my passport using my Texas COLB.-Wavey



brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

Leo Donofrio

#21

Post by brygenon » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:16 am

He's been 'resting' since September 3, 2010 (the date of the last post on his blog), but he's back.





What's got his goat is Jeff Toobin's comments to [link]Anderson Cooper,http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/v ... n-montana/[/link] the other day. Toobin mis-stated the de Vattelite's claims by saying:





“What Vattel said was natural born citizens means you were born in the United States and your parents are also born in the United States.”Donfrio says this is wrong, wrong, wrong, (obviously), but I'll leave it to the lawyers to go over and see if there's anything new in his legal analysis.


I think Toobin has a case -- maybe not iron-clad -- much better than Leo Donofrio realizes. Emerich de Vattel wrote in French and thus never used the English term "natural-born citizen". What he did write was:





Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.The obvious translation of Naturels is "naturals", so I looked is up in Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition. The most applicable of the given meaning is the native people. This is not just 'native' as in born here, as I am, but native as "Native-Americans" refers to American Indians. "Indigènes" obviously corresponds to "indigenous", which again refers to more than one or two generations.





"Parens" seems to translate to "parents", but that might not be correct. I don't speak French. I've heard from a French-speaker that in this context "Parens" can mean relatives, not strictly mother and father.





Vattel did not present "Naturels ou indigènes" as a special class under the law, precisely distinguishing by the dates their parents became citizens. Rather, they are the indigenous natives. They were born here; their parents were born here; their parents parents were born here; and so on for longer than we can trace.





The legal formalism Vattel favored was that a child's condition followed that of the father, but Vattel granted that the local law of land prevails over his suggestion. Here in U.S., our law is that children born in the United States are natural-born citizens (with narrow exceptions: children of foreign ambassadors with diplomatic immunity, or of invading armies). The descendants of colonists are not Native Americans, not indigenous, and thus not what Vattel called "Naturels ou indigènes".



User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

Leo Donofrio

#22

Post by everalm » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:06 am

For the minutae of the meaning of archaic legal French, see "Lupin" over at Dr C's, French Lawyer, very articulate mes amis.



Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

Leo Donofrio

#23

Post by Paul Pieniezny » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:19 am

"Parens" seems to translate to "parents", but that might not be correct. I don't speak French. I've heard from a French-speaker that in this context "Parens" can mean relatives, not strictly mother and father.Blood relatives actually. Someone who would pick up the bill for the child to be fed.I think the fact that since elsewhere in the paragraph and chapter Vattel uses pères, we should think of this first sentence as an explanatory introduction introducing a principle, rather than a legal point.At the time, Switzerland (as far as it existed in the minds and hearts of people - Vattel was born and died a Prussian) had as its main export product not clocks, but young men. Who may have come home from the war with a (pregnant) war bride, then leave again (with the wife pregnant a second time) - and never come back. Vattel is saying that the children of such a marriage are indigènes of Switzerlend, since we may presume that the Swiss grandfather or uncle would take over as the guardian of the children (the wife not yet having that right).As for the meaning of "parents" - at the time Vattel wrote, the use of "parens" (as it was then spelled) with the meaning "father and mother" was considered to be informal French, to be avoided in good writing (it was used in plays of the period).Interestingly, when I was able to download one, searchable, tome of one livre of Le droit des Gens from the Internet, I searched for the word and found it was used twice. Twice clearly in the meaning of blood relatives. [highlight]Is there a complete, searchable version around somewhere?[/highlight]The point being that the graphic versions are difficult to convert for searching because of the two versions of the letter "s", one of which is almost always interpreted by scanning programs as an "f".Apart from the obvious fact that a grammatical plural may not always refer to a plural meaning - even the birfers would not think a natural born citizen needs citizen fatherS - Lupin at Doc C also pointed out something that escaped my attention entirely - Vattel switches from Pays (country) to Patrie (Fatherland) and that is not exactly the same thing. In Vattel's time, country-pays tended to refer to the Realm whose ruler could consider you a citizen/subject, but Patrie was the land or area you felt attached to. After the French revolution, this started to be reversed. "J'irai revoir ma Normandie, c'est le pays qui m'a donné le jour" - would be sung by someone who considers France his Patrie, before 1789 things were different, if not downright the opposite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_NormandieThere is a good chance that Vattel himself considered Prussia his Pays, which he was a citizen of, and Switzerland his Patrie, which he was indigenous to. If the Founding Fathers really had problems with double identity and allegiance, they would not have liked the constellation that Vattel witnessed and propagated. While the present Normandie-France relationship is very similar to the Texas-USA one, I think. Except for the little Jersey angle.Vattel did not present "Naturels ou indigènes" as a special class under the law, precisely distinguishing by the dates their parents became citizens. Rather, they are the indigenous natives. They were born here; their parents were born here; their parents parents were born here; and so on for longer than we can trace.The legal formalism Vattel favored was that a child's condition followed that of the father, but Vattel granted that the local law of land prevails over his suggestion. Here in U.S., our law is that children born in the United States are natural-born citizens (with narrow exceptions: children of foreign ambassadors with diplomatic immunity, or of invading armies). The descendants of colonists are not Native Americans, not indigenous, and thus not what Vattel called "Naturels ou indigènes".It could be construed as the "Patrie" of the Native Americans being "America", not the United States, which of course, if and when they were taxed, did become their pays. The problem is obvious. Vattel's view of the world is completely different from that of the colonists. Not that the birfers will understand.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

#24

Post by bob » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:23 pm

[/break1]wordpress.com/2011/03/02/the-jay-treaty-strongly-indicates-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/]The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.In order to respect Article IX of the Jay Treaty [Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation] (and other treaties between the US and the United Kingdom), the United States is required – by the supreme law of the land – to respect the status of “British subjects”. In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them. The only way the US can identify British subjects is by recognizing and giving authority to British nationality law.[...]And herein lies the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard to Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Pay special attention to the following text taken from [/break1]loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=135]Article IX, “…and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives…”The statement – “as if they were natives” – strongly indicates that, by this treaty, both countries agreed that British subjects were not “natives” of the US and could not be considered “natives” of the US. Article IX simply carves out an exception to this rule which allows British subjects to be considered “as if” they were natives of the US. There were numerous policies in play at the time this treaty was signed which could have influenced this choice of words. (But more on that in the forthcoming part 2 of this report.)The plain meaning of these words bears testament to the fact that, by this treaty, the United States acknowledges that no British subject may be considered a “native” of the United States.[...]In 1984, the US Supreme Court – in TWA v. Franklin Mint Corp. – stated: “The great object of an international agreement is to define the common ground between sovereign nations. Given the gulfs of language, culture, and values that separate nations, it is essential in international agreements for the parties to make explicit their common ground on the most rudimentary of matters. The frame of reference in interpreting treaties is naturally international, and not domestic. Accordingly, the language of the law of nations is always to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties.”The law of nations is “always” to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties. You all know where this is going now, right?I know where this is going: a one-way crazy train to absolutely nowhere.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”