Had to do it. Had to make sure you understand how meaningless Vattel is.
Article 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Please note the semicolon at the very end, not to be mistaken as a period...Continued:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...;”
Establish, per 1828 Websters:
“1. To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently...
“I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant. Genesis 17:7.
“3. To enact or decree by authority and for permanence; to ordain; to appoint; as, to establish laws, regulations, institutions, rules, ordinances, etc...
“8. To set up in the place of another and confirm.
“Who go about to establish their own righteousness. Romans 10:3.” -- http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/establish
The point here is the power of a uniform Rule of Naturalization never existed in Congress prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Continental Congress of the Confederacy was virtually powerless, all it took was one state to reject any proposal and the proposal fails. I haven't reviewed this recently in the Federalist, yet seem to recall it was something explained in the first 10 of the Federalist Papers but I cannot recall exactly where at the time of writing this. That's fine as Hamilton provides a snippet here from Federalist 32:
“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [The unratified Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: [1]where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; [2]where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; [3] and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT...These three cases of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government may be exemplified by the following instances...The third will be found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE. -- Typographic emphasis mine, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_32.html.
Notice the mention of States having this power being a problem? Now, often I hear, this has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizens, apparently the lack of comprehending the root of the words “Naturalization” and “Natural” is too confusing.
Let us turn to Madison, from Federalist 42, the paper explaining at its beginning how Art I, Sec 9 was placed in the Constitution to end slavery by 1808, apparently America's “uncaring white slave owner Founders” (as even I was taught) are a Progressive fiction of agenda imagination, however we'll be focusing on the latter part of this Federalist Paper:
“The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions [Apparently the most Emmerich De Vattel's Law of Nations influenced instrument]. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” -- Typographical emphasis mine, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html.
I hope you see what's coming...I don't care who was mentioned in the Constitution Convention nor how many times, as, in the end, the reality is: The text of the Constitution explains the objects and specific powers granted to government to achieve those objects, some exclusive, some shared, but authorized by ratification of the Constitution, and not existing as powers until then (much of that shared jurisdiction destroyed by the 17th Amendment which destroyed the influence of the residual Sovereignty of the States on the National Government in DC), and Our Founders articulated with intention to be so specific in the Constitution that the limits to the powers, and even the object entrusted to the National government are expressed by implication. Easily seen if one recognizes the directive language of the Constitution instead of accepting our Progressive education that “the people were granted rights from the Constitution” while the same Progressives argue the 2nd Amendment isn't on equal footing with the rest of the Bill of Rights, such is the Progressive way to destroy our knowledge and understanding of our unalienable Rights and replace them with an assertion of privileges by erroneous claims of rights granted from government as being violated by that same government... It'd be funny if it weren't such a mangled mindjob on us being carried on by those in government who believe their own lie, with exception of Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus.
Now to the first act, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” done by Congress, shortly after the Constitution was Ratified (1790), an act later repealed (Note that after reading the next 5 acts to do the very same thing that also were repealed have the same “beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” (I call the “Born Abroad” provision), I decided it was a waste to look further than 20 years forward from the first act to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” since that repetition of a particular clause is synonymous with “establish” and explains that Vattel, as asserted by all these folks claiming concern about where Ted Cruz was born (who did nothing about the situation when Obama was the subject of the question)...That Vattel was rejected by Congress in carrying out its new Constitutional Art I, Sec 8 power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Dare I say, when you consider what Madison said in Federalist 42, Congress intentionally defied the asserted principle of Vattel, apparently the principle used in the Articles of Confederation:
I'll just type the part that rejects what people assert Vattel demands, even though Vattel's work was never Ratified as law in America, nor recognized by some Resolution in Congress for nobly influencing the Constitution, and I'll likely surmise that this is because the Constitution explained the power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” for the first time in existence is, also for the first time, being vested in Congress after the Constitution is Ratified:
“...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” -- Statutes-At-Large, 1790, pgs 103-104.
The act is Congress using this power for the first time and defining a natural born citizen as close in time as the phrase was used in the Constitution, whether repealed or not is meaningless to understanding the gravity of context of the term in the Constitution as used, and that Congress’ establishment of a uniform Rule of Naturalization is entirely tied to what is a Natural Born Citizen according to Congress passing an act defining the very same, asserting their new power by their first act in and using the very same language.
And as the provision has continued to be a part of act after act for at least 20 years thereafter, it is simply a unicorn's dream or Progressive fairy dust to think some book by Vattel binds the Congress, a book never ratified by the People and never subjected to the Declaration of Independence scrutinizing principle of the Consent of the Governed for its every word, every jot and every tittle; and never a part of Republican (representative) government in being ratified by the States, thus never of any greater meaning than a 3rd in weight reference at its very best, and a very far cry from a document over and above our Constitution.
So can we put this to rest once and for all in realizing that until Congress exercised the power, Vattel had no meaning, and when their first and continuing exercise of the power appears to intentionally defy Vattel, that Vattel is rendered by Congress, who alone has the power under the Constitution, entirely meaningless and nugatory in relation to natural born citizens?
What is more significant, more important for us to have done and hopefully to decide to do (which Donald Trump in his boasted buying of politicians appears to have failed to place on the top of his priority list even after making such a stink about Obama's birth certificate & illegitimacy) is to have a national yet objective, similar to the Congressional Research Service or Congressional Budget Office, “Presidential Candidate Packet Submission Review Board” that is entirely objective and will verify in fact the veracity and certainty of information provided by anyone running for President of the United States, and reporting as to what of a candidate's packet submission meets the Constitutional Standard, and what does not, for the voters to review and decide for themselves.
I became aware of this lack of anyone to carry out an objective presidential candidate packet review from a CRS memo released prior to Obama finally sharing a birth certificate with the American People, that I'll quote here:
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate...[T]here is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.3
“3. The Federal Election Commission is authorized by law to administer and seek compliance with the campaign finance provisions of federal law for candidates to federal office, and to administer and seek compliance with the provisions for public financing of the nomination and election of candidates for President, but has no duties or responsibilities with respect to judging or vetting qualifications or eligibility of candidates to federal office. 2 U.S.C. Section 437c.” [Do not think to shortcut the idea of having an objective body vet these packets, do not forget Lois Lerner worked for the Federal Election Commission in her past.]
Choice is simple: Jump up and down screaming “VATTEL SAYS...” or do something about the situation by making sure there's an objective body to vet candidates? The clarity that We the People haven't done the latter is fully expressed in those literally “exercising” the former.
As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,
Toddy Littman
