George Washington Consulted the Legal Treatise "Law of Nations" as America's New President

A historical account from the times of what the newly sworn in President George Washington was doing with the legal treatise and reference book Law of Nations in New York in 1789.

There was a news account recently that President George Washington borrowed the legal reference book "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" and never returned it to the library in New York and now owes a huge past due fine on that book. This new current events story ties into the importance of that book to George Washington and the other founders. Attached is an image and an the account what the new President was doing with the book in 1789 in New York. The new President was found consulting that book by visitors to his office in New York in 1789.

New York was then the capital of the USA. See attached highlighted section of the history book, This Was New York, The Nation's Capital in 1789, by Monaghan & Lowenthal, published by Books for Libraries Press of Freeport NY. I have a copy of this rare book. But it can also be viewed online at Google's book site.
The Law of Nations by Vattel is a very important legal treatise and was very important to the founding of our nation and writing the Constitution. It was first published in 1758. The Law of Nations is mentioned in our Constitution in Article I, Section 8. The "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" which is its full name was the preeminent legal treatise of the last half of the 1700s and was depended on heavily by the Revolutionary Patriots in the founding of our nation. Benjamin Franklin cited that it was being heavily used during the Constitutional Conventions when he received three new copies of the newest circa 1775 edition from the editor Dumas in Europe. And John Jay the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court cited it often. This legal book was cited many times by the various U.S. Supreme Courts in the 1800s and much of it became the common law of our land via Supreme Court decisions citing the wisdom conveyed in this book.

And it is this legal treatise by Vattel which defines who the "naturel" citizens are, i.e., the "natural born Citizens" of a country, i.e., a person born in the country to two citizen parents of that country. This was the law of nature and Vattel codified it in his book Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. This book was the source of the wisdom which prompted John Jay to write to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, and request that the requirement of "natural born Citizenship" be put into the new Constitution as an eligibility standard for the office of the President and commander of the military, for future holders of that office after the original generation past, to minimize any chances of foreign influences on that singular most powerful office in our new nation.

The founders and framers in their wisdom anticipated the day would come when a citizen of the world funded by foreign money would attempt to take over America. That day has come. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA. He was born a subject of Great Britain. He is not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military for exactly the reasons John Jay stated to George Washington in the summer of 1787.

Obama is a Usurper in the Oval Office and must be removed by We the People.

CDR Charles Kerchner
Pennsylvania
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

P.S. See this post for another founder and framer who sought answers from Vattel:
Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Charles Dumas of the Netherlands for sending him 3 more copies of the newest edition of Vattel's Law of Nations

P.P.S. The legal treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, known as the Law of Nations for short, defined the term "naturel" or "natural born Citizen" as a person born in the country of parents (plural) who were Citizens of the country:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1169

P.P.P.S. Thomas Jefferson also used Vattel to help write the founding documents.
####

The Court and Congress Expected the Other to Resolve the Obama Eligibility Question

On Thursday, April 15, 2010, Hon. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was giving testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the issue of the composition of the United States Supreme Court. The hearing was broadcast on C-Span. Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY (now the most senior Member of Congress of Puerto Rican descent), and he were having a pleasant exchange. Rep. Serrano was explaining to Justice Thomas how he feels “a little uneasy” despite much of the dismay of his friends on the “left” about having a hearing for the Supreme Court because of the respect that he has for the Court. He added that it was “humbling” but that the public understood the importance of what the Court does and the impact that it has on the future of our country. Justice Thomas thanked Rep. Serrano for his words. Rep. Serrano then jumped in and commented on Justice Thomas’ view on who can sit on the Supreme Court. The following exchange occurred:

Rep. Serrano: I’m glad to hear that you don’t think that there has to be a judge on the Court because I am not a judge. I have never been a judge.

Justice Thomas: And you don’t have to be born in the United States. So you never have to ask, answer that question (smiling).

Rep. Serrano: Oh, really?

Justice Thomas: Yeah (the audience laughing).

Rep. Serrano: So, you haven’t answered the one whether I can serve as (Justice Thomas interjecting) President but you answered this one (smiling).

Justice Thomas: We’re evading that one (laughter from Justice Thomas and the audience). We are giving you another option (more laughter from Justice Thomas and the audience).

Rep. Serrano: Thanks alot.

Justice Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. Serrano: Mrs. Emerson.

Mrs. Emerson, Ranking Members, then starts to address Justice Thomas as he continues to laugh.

The YouTube video may be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA.
A biography on Rep. Serrano may be found at http://serrano.house.gov/Biography.aspx.

What does all of this mean in relation to Obama’s eligibility question? What is the message behind all the joking, laughter, and body language that can be viewed on the video? From Justice Thomas’ first mentioning that one does not have to be born in the United States to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears that Justice Thomas is telling Congress that the Court is angry with Congress for allowing Obama to sit as President even though there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he was born in the United States. Rep. Serrano read the real message of Justice Clarence’s statement and let him know about it, saying “Oh, really.” Rep. Serrano did not like Justice Thomas blaming Congress for the mishandling of the matter so he shoots back at Justice Thomas by telling him the Court failed to answer the Obama eligibility question when it should have but now is answering the question of whether someone who is not born in the United States can sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. From this comment we can conclude that Congress did not believe that it was its job to answer the question of whether Obama is eligible to be President and expected the judicial branch of government to answer that question. This is borne out by the many letters that Congressmen wrote to concerned Americans on the question of what was being done to address the issue of whether Obama was eligible for the Presidency. Justice Thomas then answered that the Court is “evading that one” and giving Congress “another option.” Here we can see that the Court is telling Congress that it avoided addressing the Obama eligibility issue so Congress could resolve it through the political process, giving Congress some other unknown “option” to resolve the crisis. We can only speculate what that other “option” is at this point. Needless to say, it appears that both Congress and the Court are angry at each other for the constitutional crisis that each accuses the other to have caused regarding the Obama eligibility question.

The Obama eligibility issue has run its course through the political process. We can reasonably expect Obama to run for a second term. We surely do not want to repeat during Obama’s second run for President what occurred during his first. We cannot reasonably expect to resolve the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii and the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause by way of Americans voting at the polls. This issue is not going away. It is dividing our nation and needs to be decided as soon as possible. There is now no other way to resolve the question of Obama’s eligibility other than through the legal process. As Chief Justice John Marshall so well taught in many of his important U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there is no doubt that the judicial branch of government is well equipped and capable of deciding this critical issue of constitutional law and by doing so will not interfere in the work of the other two branches of government. The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case which is now pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia with a tentative merits hearing date of June 29, 2010 gives the judicial branch of government the prime opportunity to put this constitutional crisis finally to rest one way or the other.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 17, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

P.S. Read the comments made on March 25, 2010, by Minister of Lands, Mr. James Orengo, Member of the Kenyan Parliament on the issue of Obama's country of birth during a session of the Kenyan National Assembly:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html

Newspaper Birth Announcement Ads in 1961 in two Hawaiian Newspapers do NOT prove Obama was physically born in Hawaii

Newspaper Birth Announcement Ads in 1961 in two Hawaiian Newspapers do NOT prove Obama was physically born in Hawaii
by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

The two announcements in the Hawaiian newspaper in 1961 only prove a birth was REGISTERED there, not that he was born there. A registration was allowed under Hawaiian law in 1961 to be made by any family member via a simple mail-in form to the state Health Department. No 3rd party or independent witnesses to the birth were required. The statement of a family member registering a new born child as born home was accepted into the registration system with little or no questions back then. Thus the family could lie and register a birth in Hawaii when it occurred elsewhere, anywhere in the world, simply to get the child U.S. citizenship, a highly coveted status then and now. The false registration was not done so he could be President some day. The false registration was done to get the new born child citizenship for that time. It was a case of birth registration fraud to illegally gain U.S. citizenship for a foreign born child of the family.

Given Hawaii's very lax birth registration laws in 1961, as I said, Obama could have been born anywhere in the world and if Obama's maternal grandma filled out the form and mailed it in to the birth registration office saying Obama was born at their home in Hawaii, a vital record would be created. And the birth announcement was on the list of births registered that week and which lists were sent routinely each week to the two newspapers. With data systems it is GIGO, garbage (false registration data) in yields garbage out (fraudulently created birth record in the state's vital record system out). And with a falsified birth registration in the system, subsequent computer print outs in later years and carefully crafted statements by Hawaiian officials that they have a record of Obama being born in Hawaii can be obtained and made. But those printouts and statements are being made based on a falsified vital record mail-in registration form back in 1961.

WND.com, an online newspaper, did investigations on this first in 2009. They also did follow on stories in 2010 into how the newspaper ads were placed in those two papers in 1961 and the research revealed that the birth announcements were placed by the state, not the family. See these two article links below and many other articles as to how the Honolulu Advertiser and the other sister pub got the birth announcements from a list from the state each week, not from the families. These were public service birth announcements provided by the state. Garbage/falsified data on the available and simple birth registration mail-in form sent into the birth registration office in 1961 by a fraudulent filing by Obama's grandmother to get her foreign born new grandson U.S. citizenship, illegally but easily given Hawaii's lax laws back then, yielded a birth announcement in the paper for a birth in Hawaii that was registered there but did not physically occur in Hawaii. Obama was physically not born in Hawaii, as James Orengo, Member of Parliament, in Kenya recently attested to, as have other MPs in Kenya and as have members of Obama's paternal line family in Kenya.

2009 investigation into the two Obama Birth newspaper announcements:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104678

2010 follow-up investigation report in the Obama Birth newspaper announcements:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=121136

My explanation to Bill Cunningham on his nationally syndicated radio show in the summer of 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

See the name of the section at the top of the newspaper column which clearly tells you the source of the information in the announcement lists, "Health Bureau Statistics":
http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/newspaper-announcements-were-placed-by-health-bureau-statistics.jpg

The main stream media is deliberately lying about how these birth announcements got into those newspapers when they tell America that the family placed the ads and that someone was anticipating that someday Obama would run for President. First the family did not place the ads, the state did. And the family member simply filed the false birth registration data on the mail-in form for the obvious purpose of gaining the child U.S. citizenship, a highly coveted status then and now. Birth registration fraud occurs today and it occurred then. And it occurred in 1961 with Obama. The Hawaiian authorities were victims of the birth registration fraud by Obama's grandmother back in 1961 and now instead of admitting it, they are covering up that there is no independent evidence to verify the false registration that Obama was born in Hawaii. No hospital or doctor's name no medical attendants name at the home. Nothing. Just the false testimony of the grandmother on a mail-in form that no one verified back in 1961.

With the contradictory statements being made in Kenya by government officials there and members of the family there that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a native born American, the true legal identity needs to be investigated in a court of law. Any reasonable person looking at the evidence for and against Obama being born in Hawaii would say there is reasonable doubt he was born in Hawaii and would demand a further investigation. But the media is covering up for Obama by making false statements to protect him. The media created Obama, covered up for him, and is still a propaganda organ for him. This is a national disgrace.

CDR Charles Kerchner
Pennsylvania
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Cross Link Update: Kenyan Minister of Lands, James Orengo, states in open session of the Kenyan Parliament that Obama was "born here in Kenya" and is "not a native American":
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html

Update: See this Catalog of Evidence prepared in May 2010 by Mario Apuzzo which shows the vast amount of evidence which points to Obama not being physically born in Hawaii and likely just falsely registered as being born there.
####

Current Minister of Kenyan Government Declares Obama "was born here in Kenya" and Is Not a “native American”

A debate on the adoption of a new Kenyan Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Official Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, and recorded in the Kenyan government's depository, Hansard-the official source of printed transcripts of parliamentary debates-provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers (see pages 29-31) during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. James Orengo. Ironically, he expressed to the Parliament in open debate that "[i]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no significance...." He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the "unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fight for so many years...." He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the "Executive authority of the President . . . is derived from the people...."

He then continued to tell the Parliament that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of their ethnicity or tribal affiliations. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affiliations, stating: "The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence."

There we have it clearly stated by a current Minister of the Kenyan Cabinet that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a "native American." It is unbelievable that a high-ranking member of the Kenyan government would make such a matter-of-fact statement, given the debate that is raging in the United States about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. From his statement, it appears that Mr. Orengo believes that the American electorate knew that Obama was born in Kenya and still voted for him to be President. It is also significant that no one in the Kenyan Parliament corrected or challenged Mr. Orengo when he made his statement, given that Obama's place of birth debate must be well-known in Kenya and is important to Obama's legitimacy to be the President of the United States. Kenya would not only be embarrassed but would also be negatively impacted upon if Obama were found not to be the legitimate President of the United States. One would also think that Mr. Orengo would share his knowledge with the American people. I surely hope that the American media will immediately fly to Kenya and personally speak to Mr. Orengo to find out why he believes that Obama was born in Kenya. The full House report was originally found at http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf. [Direct viewing scrubbed/disabled on Kenyan server as of 15 Apr 2010. A copy of the Kenyan National Assembly PDF file which was saved and uploaded to SCRIBD.com can still be downloaded from there.] The speech of Mr. Orengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31.

For a catalog of evidence concerning whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, see my essay entitled, Is the State of Hawaii Covering Up Birth Registration Fraud in the Case of Obama? Hawaii Law Makers Contemplating Stopping Concerned Americans from Investigating Whether Obama Was Born There - Plus a Catalog of Evidence for and Against Obama's Physically Being Born in Hawaii and Not Just Falsely Registered There After the Fact, at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/hawaii-law-makers-contemplating.html

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 11, 2010
Updated April 14, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

19 April 2010 Update: Another Kenyan minister, Dr. Bonny Khalwale, stated on the record on 14 April 2010 in the Kenyan National Assembly that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya. See full story here:
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/04/kenyan-minister-khalwale-asks-when.html
####

Cross Link: Newspaper Birth Announcement Ads in 1961 in two Hawaiian Newspapers do NOT prove Obama was physically born in Hawaii. The two announcements in the Hawaiian newspaper in 1961 only prove a birth was REGISTERED there, not that he was born there. See this link for details:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/newspaper-birth-announcement-ads-in.html
####

New Ad - Obama & Pelosi Flout the Constitution - Obama Not "natural born Citizen" - 12 Apr 2010 Issue of Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5

New Ad - Obama & Pelosi Flout the Constitution - Obama Not "natural born Citizen" - 12 Apr 2010 Issue of Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29727190/Obama-Pelosi-Flout-the-U-S-Constitution-20100412-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5#

Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####