Monday, April 26, 2010

Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Charles Dumas of the Netherlands for sending him 3 more copies of the newest 1775 edition of Vattel's Law of Nations

Another founder of our nation and framer of our Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, was also quite familiar and well versed with the writings of Vattel. He had his own personal copy prior to the advent of the Revolution. And in 1775 he wrote to Charles Dumas an editor and journalist in the Netherlands and thanked him for sending Franklin 3 copies of the newest edition of Vattel (published in French). Franklin commented to Dumas that his personal copy was in heavy demand by the other delegates to the Continental Congress meeting in 1775. Dumas was the Editor for the newly published 1775 edition of Vattel's Law of Nations (in the original French) in the Netherlands. Franklin and most of the founders were fluent in French which was the diplomatic language of that time. Dumas also made comments in his writings to Franklin about Vattel's enlightened writings and vision for a new form of government for a nation where the people were sovereign and the unique opportunity for its application to the affairs in America in the colonies splitting from Great Britain. The words found in our Declaration of Independence mentioning the "Laws of Nature" and the phrase mentioning unalienable rights such as "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are right out of Volume 1 of Vattel. As are the words of seeking a more perfect union in the Preamble of our Constitution were also inspired by the teachings and writings of Vattel who wrote that government should always be striving to perfect itself to better serve the people. Thus it is quite evident that the founders read and used Vattel extensively. Here is a reprint of the letter from Franklin to Dumas thanking him for sending the books.

Benjamin Franklin to: Charles William Frederic Dumas

Dear Sir,
Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.
I received your several favors, of May 18th, June 30th, and July 8th, by Messrs. Vaillant and Pochard;(1) whom if I could serve upon your recommendation, it would give me great pleasure. Their total want of English is at present an obstruction to their getting any employment among us; but I hope they will soon obtain some knowledge of it. This is a good country for artificers or farmers; but gentlemen of mere science in les belles lettres cannot so easily subsist here, there being little demand for their assistance among an industrious people, who, as yet, have not much leisure for studies of that kind.
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 sending 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. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expose de ce qui s'est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies," bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power.


CDR Charles Kerchner

P.S. President George Washington in 1789 consulted Vattel's legal treatise The Law of Nations as America's new President:

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:

P.P.P.S. Thomas Jefferson also used Vattel's The Law of Nations to write the founding documents.


Incredulous said...

I believe the Law of Nations set their guidelines, and to have defined Natural Born Citizen would be like a football announcer defining what a touchdown means every time it happened. Still, why have SCOTUS holdings been so cryptic about NBC in all cases? For example why in Minor does it in dicta define NBC, yet the holding says the definition must be found outside of the Constitution (the 14th amendment had been added 6 years prior to Minor, so we know the 14th cannot define NBC)...what were they getting at with that? I believe one of the justices who wrote in Wong Kim Ark was appointed by Chester Arthur.

Bill Cutting said...


I have wondered the same thing.It seems some could never get over breaking the tie to Merry old England. Your veiw is the correct veiw. This was posted last night in the George Washington article comments.

"Thus it appears that the authorities were in conflict not alone in the highest tribunal of the land, but also in the lower state courts, which a review of their decisions would show."

Thanks Charles


Thanks for point out that book. Here is the link to the book Bill commented about in hyper link format:

CDR Kerchner

A pen said...

Establishing the true impact the Law of Nations had on the framers useage and intent can not be overdone. It has so far been a defense of ignorance aided by the scurrilous media which has apprehended public pressure upon congress and the devious delays the system of justice has employed while that ignorance has been remediated. Bravo!

A pen said...

Incredulous, the court of late has sought only to settle the most narrow issue it must in order to be seen as functioning at all. It has performed enough construction already to have created a constitution of it's own. We are left with a simmering degradation of our culture which once appreciated will never be corrected in time to restore the adequacy of the current system to govern the results of that skullduggery, an impotent society betrothed to want and deception.

Anonymous said...

I have come to believe that it is no longer a question of getting the SCOTUS to acknowledge the 'definition, meaning and intent' of the 'idiom' of natural born citizen as any intellectually honest individual would soon recognize as being self-evident with even cursory research.

The question SCOTUS needs to be asked is; "Is the Constitution of the United States of America STILL the Supreme Law of the Land?"

jayjay said...

Indeed the Founders were fluent in the diplomatic language of the day - French - and even John Quincy Adams (then a youth) had already held a paying job with the envoy to Russia as an interpreter since the envoy was not fluent in either French OR Russian.

John, the younger, was 14 at the time so you can be sure that, being home schooled, his parents could parley vous a pretty decent Francais themselves.

Still it's good to have the clear and convincing information that Vattel was indeed widely used and highly regarded by those drafting the Constitution.mou

Anonymous said...

Please note, “the single question” decided by the WONG court was whether or not WONG was a “citizen of the United States” "at the time of his birth" “by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution” NOT whether or not WONG was an Article II "natural-born citizen” of the United States, and thus eligible to the office of President.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)


[13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, ...becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 [At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

[121] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States [under the 14th Amendment, NOT an Article II natural-born citizen]. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Brianroy said...

I came across an interesting British case that appears to fit in nicely with Vattel, and don't recall if you have used it yet. Joyce v. D.P.P. seems relevant v. Obama
regarding his passport issue and his British Commonwealth citizenship.
Some excerpts:
"Held (1.) that an alien abroad holding a British passport enjoys the protection of the Crown and if he is adherent to the King’s enemies he is guilty of treason, so long as he has NOT renounced that protection…
Per Lord Porter: The renewal of the passport did not prove conclusively in law that the duty of allegiance continued until the passport ceased to be valid, unless some action on the part of the Crown or of the appellant put an end to that protection... Resolution of the judges of January 12, 1707, Foster’s Crown Cases, 3rd ed., p. 185, discussed.

… The appellant was born in the United States of America, in 1906, the son of a NATURALIZED American citizen who had previously been a British subject by birth. He thereby became himself a natural born American citizen" [via the Naturalized Citizen FATHER - Brianroy].
"…an alien owes a local allegiance only so long as he resides within the King’s dominions, the nature of allegiance has been long settled: … Calvin’s case 1a, 4b, 5b. Blackstone’s Commentaries, 1st ed., vol. 1, pp. 357-9: “Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. …. Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the King’s dominion and protection: and it ceases the instant such stranger transfers himself from this Kingdom to another. … As therefore the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his
natural-born subjects, AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL COUNTRIES, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire. …”

…in Foster’s Crown Cases, 1792 ed., p. 185: “And if such alien seeking the protection of the Crown; and having a family and effects here, should during a war with his native country, go thither, and adhere to the King’s enemies for purposes of hostility, he might be dealt with as a traitor. For he came and settled here under the protection of the Crown; and though his person was removed for a time, his effects and family continued still under the same protection. This rule was laid down by all the judges assembled at the Queen’s command, January 12, 1707.”
Can you use this?

Brianroy said...

Further of significance in the Joyce v. D.P.P. case, beyond the fact that it is the Father's Citizenship that confers a "natural born status", is the "passport" issue.

It was argued by the defenset @355 “Apart from the Naturalization Act, 1870, the general principle still holds good. Nemo potest exuere patriam. Nothing a man does can make him a British subject and nothing he can omit to do can prevent him from being a British subject if he was so born.”
It was argued by the Crown @358-359: “The passport is now the method by which the Crown accords [*359] his protection to persons abroad. It is the sovereign’s express command to his representatives that protection is to be given and in its normal functioning puts into operation the Crown’s protective system. The resident alien shares now in the general protection of all the inhabitants of the realm but the passport holder has the benefit of a protective machinery going much further, even to the point of involving the country in war: see article on International Law in Practice by Sir William Malkin (1933), 49 Law Quarterly Review, p. 489, and Encyclop3Ú4dia of the Laws of England, 2nd ed., vol X., p. 585, et seq.”
The French word “liege” is believed to be derived from the Feudal “serf” or Latin “letus” or “leticus”. But the Romans themselves appear to have borrowed their understanding from the Germanic “lethigaz” (those who are freed, released, set at liberty, let go).

Is it not the case that the precedent of aliens being born into legience as “born citizens” via jus soli, appears to have only entered English legal interpretation (so far as we are aware) via the Scottish “Calvin’s Case” decision, decided by Lord Coke in 1609?

Obama’s Father transfers a de facto British Commonwealth Citizenship of the territories of Britain legience to Barack II, so that not only is Barack II a Kenyan “natural born citizen” and US Presidency Usurper, but he must be viewed as a British “natural born citizen”, because it is the Father’s Land… Nemo potest exuere patriam - No one may leave the Fatherland…that counts in Vattel, US Supreme Court Law, and in the British Law of Citizenship argued by Joyce v. D.P.P. in Great Britain
Re: Patrium as "Father's Land":
et al.

Brianroy said...

And if we were to go back to Greek sources like Aristotle, we would see that though the situation of what defined citizenship may have pragmatically varied (being relaxed) in times of dearth or in war (Aristotle, Politics Book 3.5). But in times of prosperity, the 2 parent rule in defining citizenship was not only the ideal, but preferred as a norm, and appears to have been an ancient means to "restrict" immigration and growth from those not "jus soli".

By example, Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, 2.26, (translated by Frederick G. Kenyon)
“…it was resolved, on the motion of Pericles, that no one should admitted to the franchise who was not of citizen birth by both parents. “

I still contend that the best and most correct application of citizenship, as it regards "natural-born" subjects, must be focused on through paternity, the Father, in US Supreme Court Law. And in the quote I used from Joyce v. D.P.P. @348, when the rubber meets the road, the British took the same view toward whose naturalization to the United States granted the US "jus soli" birth of the child his US natural born status. The mother status was left out as though it was irrelevant (where the father's citizenship and status was known).

Since Obama's father never naturalized to the USA, it is impossible for Barack to be a natural born child of any other nation than that of his father's. And in that sense, without a renunciation of the same by his 21st birthday, the US Supreme Court (if they decide on this case) must apply to him as extant his British Commonwealth citizenship: Nemo potest exuere patriam; and call Barack Hussein Obama II as malum in se, unConstitutionally in the Office of the Presidency of the United States, and that every act he commits is another illegal act that needs to be reversed by the Supreme Court and ruled invalid.

Dixhistory said...

I'm no word smith but see we have many that post on this blog. I get it but for those more simple minded folks like me I say it this way.

Obama is ineligible to hold the office of president based solely on the fact that he at beast, only had dual citizenship at his birth.

A fact which obama has admitted on his campaign website and in his book. He also described himself as “native citizen” rather than the “natural born Citizen” required by the US Constitution to be eligible for the office of President of these United States.

He plainly states his citizenship at the time of his birth was that of his father, British! The Dual Citizen, Obama, lacks legal authority to be POTUS!

We know what Obama is and what he is not.

This then is not about a Birth Certificate or a born citizen!

It is about our U. S. Constitution being selectively enforced or not being enforced at all.

There in lies the trouble and it is men such as Mario, Charles and all the others in our camp that need to make those in power yeild to the rule of law. For without the rule of law then we are surely a lost nation.


jayjay said...


You do just fine with words!!

The way I say it is that Obama has never proved himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

However one says it - he's a usurper and it's time the MSM and others in politics wake up to the fact and take action (especially those last two words since the realization of ineligibility was there long ago).

Larry said...

@ Brianroy - Because the Usurper illegally assumed office, every official action he has taken since that moment must be ruled null and void ab initio, thus rendering his administration and his evil plans totally impotent. Saturday evening, I was in a very large and extremely crowded restaurant (15,000 to 20,000 customers/day) in Atlanta (near Georgia Tech) known as "The Varsity". Every room has a television tuned to a different station. From in and near the "CNN Room", there suddenly emanated screams of "BOOOOOO!!! YOU'RE A LIAR!!! BOOOOOOOO!!!". I just had to see what was going on. The disturbance was triggered by the Usurper appearing on CNN, not a word he said could be heard above the jeers of hundreds of irritated patrons of every description (it was truly a heart warming display). The owners, "Brian" and "Nancy" said the displays of disapproval have now become common. After a little over a year in office, the Usurper's supply of "political Viagra" is completely used up - he's finished.

cfkerchner said...

Whistleblower asked:

"3 copies of the newest edition of Vattel (in French)."

What would have been the publication year on those copies, and what makes you so sure that they were in French?

The publication year for this newest edition in French was 1775. See the catalog of the Philadelphia Library which has a copy of the 1758 French language edition and the 1775 French language edition.

CDR Kerchner

Anonymous said...

What of the 1759 version printed in London, was it in French or the King's English?

Printed for J. Coote at Kings Arms in Pater-Noster Row.

I only have .tiffs of Title Page which is in ENGLISH but have never been able to find the Chapter to see if it uses the 'natural born citizen' idiom as the later Chitty version does.

cfkerchner said...


The 1759 (aka 1760) edition was published in London in English. That was explained in one of the links in my post which discussed some of the editions of Vattel published back then. But here is the link again.

CDR Kerchner

Bill Cutting said...

I have been reading some Lefty opinions at another blog.
It seems that Lefty is full bent on rejecting the American Revolution and the Constituiton to adopt the common law of England.
This twisted and incorrect veiw of history seems to legitimize the British Born Subject and putative president Obama in their minds.

What a silly notion.

"The American Revolution was a rejection of monarchy and the British statutes adopted under the authority of the English Crown. It was a repudiation of the despotic practices of monarchical law and society. Consequently, all principles and laws consistent with that form of government were also rejected in favor of republicanism and our new national law – our Constitution. Some people have argued that, although we explicitly rejected the British monarchy and its feudal principles, we adopted the common law of England as part of our new national law.

English common law is mostly derived through a long series of court precedents from different cultures spanning many centuries. It is sometimes referred to as “unwritten” or “precedential” law. In order for the Founders to adopt English common law, they would have to accept the body of rulings of the English courts, whose judges were appointed by royalty and decided many of their cases according to the principles, traditions, and functions of their monarchical government. Such a notion ought to leave most people wondering why Americans would revolt against the British Crown, hold a Constitutional Convention, and then simply adopt the entire body of unwritten law from that previous tyrannical government.

Obviously, the answer is that they wouldn’t…and didn’t."

cfkerchner said...


Debating with Obots is a waste of time. For they do not wish to learn the truth of the history of this nation and our Constitution. Instead they wish to confuse and obfuscate the issue for the reading general public who may come by their blog.

The book which I think you cited is very clear that for the U.S. Federal Constitution the english common law (ECL) was not used. English common law was retained quite a bit for intrastate municipal law issues. But was not used for the federal interstate law. For that the Revolutionaries looked to Vattel and Law of Nations. For the 13 colonies were each sovereign states and it was the writings on Natural Law and the Law of Nations codified by Vattel that provided the tools to unite them into a more perfect union with the creation of the new Constitution.

There are many quotes in this book to that effect. But just read page 75 for a sample. Then you can search for many more.

The book which clearly explains that English Common Law was not adopted for our Federal Law: "A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States: treated historically. By Prentiss Webster"

Like I said, debating Obots is a waste of time. The only arguments that will count are those in a court of law on the merits, at SCOTUS. That time will come.

CDR Kerchner

Brianroy said...

What a difference 67 years makes in the Media. During World War 2, the publisher of Time Magazine had a Vattel-like perspective on the difference between native-born and natural-born.,9171,791199,00.html

"Time Magazine: A Letter From The Publisher, Dec. 13, 1943

April 26—U.S. at War. The Constitution provides that the President must be a "natural born" citizen, but he does not have to be "native born." If he had to be "native born" a man born of American parents outside the country could not become President."

Now it seems to me, that clearly in 1943, the publisher of Time Magazine had the legal view that a United States "natural-born citizen" was born of 2 United States citizen parents, even if the child was (by presumption)
born outside the confines of the US or its territories (say on an ocean liner in International waters, perhaps).

But now, 67 years later, the media and Liberal position has reversed from a "jus sanguinis only" position of both parents to a "jus soli only". Hmmn. Curious, and too convenient.

James said...

I think the problem with the Obots and even the courts is that they consider "Native Born" to be "Natural Born". It really started with the Wong Kim Ark case that if someone is born on US Soil the can be treated with the same respects and rights as a Natural Born Citizen. In other words, the courts have considered children of aliens to be natural born citizens when they really aren't. The true definition of Natural Born citizen is one born on US soil to 2 US Parents. That's what the Constitution says who can be President.....Not individuals who can be treated with same respect and rights as Natural Born Citizens.

cfkerchner said...


The other issue is changes in language and the meaning of words. The word "natives" as Vattel used it was interchangeable with "natural borns" and/or "indigenous" because in the sentence where he defines in his treatise the words "natural born Citizens" he uses those terms interchangeably. People knew what he meant back then by the words. But he went the extra step to say what he meant in that sentence and Section 212. The rest of the sentence on NBC clearly defines what he means as to those noun words. Whatever Obama wants to label himself, he does not meet Vattel's meaning for those words and thus does not meet the intent of the framers and founders. So the way we as lay people understand the word "native born" as Obama calls himself (not natives which was Vattel's one word for the group of people he was defining) we mean something totally different than Vattel's usage. Today "native born" refers to where one was born. When Vattel used the word "natives" he meant far more, i.e., those born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.

Another example of language change conveying opposite meaning from my research. A Federalist's view of the power desired for the Federal government (Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists in 1788) is opposite of what we consider a Federalist to be today. The Federalists back then were for a stronger federal government form relative to the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalists were for a much weaker federal government and stronger state's rights and power. Federalists today are commonly associated with stronger state's rights and power.

Obama and his cronies use this confusion in language and similar terms all the time to confuse lay people. Take the document names, "Certification of Live Birth" and "Certificate of Live Birth". Some of Obama's Obots on line are pros at this and are paid operatives to deliberately use misleading wording to confuse people to try and win the debate in blogs and thus keep public opinion confused.

The Progressives are just clever but malicious college educated Marxists who are good at twisting word meaning and the truth of our nation's history and the intent and meaning of words in our Constitution. With them, it all depends on what the word "is" means and they will tell you what it means to them now, not when it was written, etc. :-)

CDR Kerchner

cfkerchner said...

Looking at the meaning of words and dissecting them from a linguistic perspective, John Greschak, wrote an excellent essay titled, "What is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?" Here is a link to that excellent piece:>/synopsis.htm

And then there is the Logical Analysis of the term "natural born Citizen" by Teo Bear at site. Here is that link:

CDR Kerchner

Brianroy said...

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Sunday, February 26, 1888, p.6

“We also wrote to the author of the work quoted from, Alexander Porter Morse, Esq., Washington, and received a very courteous and prompt reply, as follows:
Undoubtedly he would; [be eligible to the Presidency] provided the father was (as I infer the question in the shape in which it is put assumes), 1, a citizen of the United States, and 2, is not within the exception of the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. at Large 604), which is “that right of [American] citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.” The true rule may be thus expressed: “The child of an American citizen is an American citizen [by birth].” The place of birth is immaterial. Of the former tests of citizenship, the place of birth and the nationality of the father. The United States has given in her adhesion to the latter, as have several Continental States.”

Alexander Porter Morse in 1888 placed an emphasis of the FATHER's Citizen status as that which was the essential in determining the child's citizen staus, whether he was born in the US or abroad. I posted the entire Brooklyn Eagle public domain article at Scribd.

The article also cites that children born of aliens in the US are NOT 14th Amendment protected. Again, as with Vattel, the consensus keeps harping back in jurisprudence and legal opinion, that the father is the chief determinent in the child's nationality, regardless of where he or she was born.

The Brooklyn Eagle also defends their past confirmations that a "natural born citizen" is US home born or jus soli by two US citizen parents in the article as being accurate. The only "abroad" concept allowable (in 1888, says the Eagle), is to be born on the high seas under the US Flag.

What a help this paper is some 122 years later.

Joe said...

There is something wrong with the video. Too many cutaways. Every time he says HI, Kenya or not born in the USA, the camera either goes to a long shot or his back is to the camera.

then when he starts with, aannnd, his left hand is in his pocket but it wasn't in the camera angle right before that. It would be good to get both camera's videos before it was edited.

what do you think?

has this been debunked but I just never saw it before?

Joe said...

The video is a hoax,

see Birther's Delight part 1 and 2.

I should have examined it more before I posted it here. Sorry. Way too much editing!!

Incredulous said...

Since Clarence Thomas admits SCOTUS has been evading (deceit) the ineligibility issue...
and they know which cases are coming down the pike...
Aren't they simply concocting new excuses to evade what's to come? And since this is the case, isn't this all for naught?
And what's the recourse? Being dumped into serfdom of global Marxofascism?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the response on the ‘1759/60 London printing’ edition of Vattel.

But what I am trying to ‘discover’ is if the ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen was to be found it that edition as it was used in Chiity’s 1883 translation.

With my bias I find the meaning and intent of Vattels words even in French but many point out that the French versions do not form the idiom as a group of words and suggest that Chitty used the English form of NBC and imply that it includes all the meanings to be found in Blackstone.

I have not been able to find a full version of the 1759/60 edition to see how Chap. 212 is expressed.

But here is an example of what the US Guv’mnt would have us believe, from the USCIS publication of “The Citizen’s Almanac”, M-76 found on page #4;

* Right to run for elected office.

U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country.

Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which require candidates to be native-born citizens. *

I have a FOIA request asking for all information surrounding the inclusion of that ‘passage’ in the publication and cite this in the appeal in process at the Administrative Appeals Office regarding my request for ‘Certification’ as an NBC, insofar as citizenship is concerned.

What I should have done before going to the USDC/USCA/SCOTUS last year.

cfkerchner said...


You seem to be digging for things to quote here to save or help Obama out of his con job and the fraud he has pulled on America.

Your user ID implies you are a member of a group. Can you provide me with a website or blog where you post your research findings?

The 1797 English language translation of Vattel was the first edition to use the explicit words "natural born Citizen" in Section 212 of Vattel as the translated meaning of the French word for the naturels or indigenous.

So you do not have to go to an 1883 English version of Vattel to find the specific words in English as "natural born Citizen".

That government document was obviously written by a progressives of the vein of Obama who also calls himself a native born Citizen and thus qualified to be President. But that is not what our constitution says.

Government publications and Senate Resolutions do not amend the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 1, which requires a "natural born Citizen" not a native born Citizen, especially the way we use the words "native born" to mean today. Remember Vattel did not say "native born". He said the "natives" or the "indigenous" and then defined what he meant by those words IN ALL EDITIONS as being those born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens of the country.

You can't just nitpick on one word and try to attach modern meaning to the word. You must read the entirety of the sentence and the rest of Section 212. And then you must realize that the 1797 English translation confirmed what Vattel meant in the French using the very words found in our U.S. Constitution, "natural born Citizen". And the Venus case in 1814 confirmed that is what "natural born Citizen" means in our Constitution.

CDR Kerchner

cfkerchner said...


I just checked the publication and revision date of the document you cited. I see what you pointed us to was done in 2008. Why would we believe anything coming out of our system about who can be President in 2008 from our government when the entire Presidential election of 2008 was a fraud perpetrated on the American people by a corrupt Congress and Main Stream Media to ignore and subvert our Constitution. This type of document that you point out is more of the same attempts of the Progressives in both parties to change the Constitution without amending it. Numerous bills have been floated in the Senate to try and define what "natural born Citizen" means but they were killed. Why? Because they know what it means, i.e., Vattel's definition, and don't want the public to learn about it in the debates of such bills. A bill was tried and failed in late 2007/early 2008. So what do they do instead, they put out false and misleading government documents and false and misleading replies to letters from their Constituents. All so both parties can run ineligible candidates and both cover for each other and keep quiet about it and con the People. Our Congress and major media are corrupt.

CDR Kerchner

jayjay said...


Your use of the "Citizen's Almanac" is "interesting" since the document has incomplete information relating the the nbC requirement for Presidential elibgibility (one must be "mative-born" and then some; you must also be born of two citizen parents and on US soil) and in any event that document is merely casual information without the force of law.

You present it as though is is somehow superior to the black letter law in the US Constitution.


Anonymous said...

cfkerchner said.."Your user ID implies you are a member of a group. Can you provide me with a website or blog where you post your research findings"

Sir, I am only trying to be scrupulous in my readings and interpretations and as you are aware there are volumes of info on both sides of the issue.

I am SLCraig, the same that has filed a civil claim in the USDC/USCA/SCOTUS seeking to have MY citizenship status acknowledged and confirmed as being a 'natural born citizen' insofar as 'citizenship' is concerned.

In spite of the fact 'The Citizens Almanac' was 1st published in 2008 it is, even as we speak, being handed out to immigrants that come in contact with the USCIS, complete with the Un Constitutional usage of 'native' in lieu of 'natural'.

Regarding the various editions of Vattel I did mean, in my small mind, the 1797 version being the 1st known usage of the ‘idiom’ in whole but remain curious how the 1759/60 edition is worded.

I am not some skulking troll attempting to deceive, distract and derail honest inquiry and full understanding, quit the contrary, I, in my humble way and on my own path, am working as diligently as you and Mr. Apuzzo in efforts to expose the most despicable fraud ever perpetrated on this country of ours.

I maintain a humble forum at

By way of explanation of my thoughts in attempting to have myself ‘legally’ recognized as a NBC by the Guv’mnt it is my thought the NBC, in the 1st instant, is a ‘citizenship question’ and ONLY becomes a ‘Political Question’ at that time and in those situations when an ‘individual’ declares intention to stand for a ‘public office’.

To me, it is important to SEPARATE the definition from being considered as ONLY a ‘political question’ because the courts will continue to ‘evade’ positing an answer when it is presented as a ‘political question’ citing ‘separation of powers’ doctrine.

Being a Representative Republic that selects and elects its Representatives from the ‘People’ it must be considered OBVIOUS that the two forms of citizenship expressed in the Constitution in Articles I and II refers to the Peoples of the various States and being in various conditions of citizenship.

In short, to me, NBC is a Citizenship Question first and incidentally a Political Question on those occasions mentioned above.

Dixhistory said...

UNBC, I take it that you are NBC both parents citizens and you was born on US soil.

Am I to take from the below you are trying to push a legal action so a court will declare you with the term natural born citizen rather than just citizen?

UNBC said
"I am SLCraig, the same that has filed a civil claim in the USDC/USCA/SCOTUS seeking to have MY citizenship status acknowledged and confirmed as being a 'natural born citizen' insofar as 'citizenship' is concerned."

Anonymous said...

Dixhistory said...
"UNBC, I take it that you are NBC both parents citizens and you was born on US soil."

WE are on the same team.

Did you not read Leo Donofrio's analysis of my case when the USCA 10th Circuit gave their 'orbita dictum' opinion when they dismissed in part and REMANDED in part?

They referred to my usage of Vattel as relying on a Swiss Philosopher in asserting my claim as a NBC.

Anyway, you will see that Leo does not think I, or anyone else, has a 'RIGHT' to be acknowledged as an NBC, to which I disagree.

If there are NO NBC's in the USA then there is NO ONE that can be selected and/or elected as POTUS.

Yes, two citizen Parents, who were citizens at the time of birth, regardless of how they obtained their citizenship, and being born within the Jurisdiction of the US are the circumstances that are required to be 'considered' an NBC.

Joe said...

If "ack-ma-jin-a-dad" has a baby while he is here on visa, will the baby get to be president someday?

Well he applied for a visa so we better hope he doesn't bring a pregnant wife with him.

James said...

We have Bad News!

Dixhistory said...


The gray matter is tired and forgets but yes I did read it and that great link you posted brought it all back at:
CRAIG V. US – 10th Circuit Court of Appeals


Mick said...

Hi. votes to ignore “birthers”. Catch the snark at the end. This is a journalist?

A pen said...

Off topic?
In the case of Obama eligibility it is quite clear that HE must provide the necessary documents to prove he is eligible. The person or entity who accepts those documents is not stated in the constitution however the duty clearly falls on every person sworn to uphold and defend the document including inspecting documents required by it. That said, there is one person who has signed a notarized statement ( ) to that effect, Nancy Pelosi. It is she who must be charged with fraud . It is well established in the bill she signed that recognized the status of "natural born citizen" to be granted those born of citizen PARENTS , plural, also established in other historical texts which the senate had access to which due diligence would have uncovered ( :// ). It is well established the BHO had a non-citizen father. She understood the law yet signed to a document that stated the impossible and that is the cornerstone of the fraud. True?

Dixhistory said...

True and Charles legal action names her and the other traitors that had a duty to uphold their oath.

Trouble is we no longer are a nation of laws but of opinion polls and raw power. A court system that is slow to respond to attacks from with-in or not respond at all.


A pen said...Off topic?
In the case of Obama eligibility it is quite clear that HE must provide the necessary documents to prove he is

Larry said...

We have absolutely no reliable print media and the courts have become little more than totally corrupted extortion devices. Congress is useless and it has no credibility whatsoever. My faith in the future of this nation wanes more by the hour. When the supreme law of any land is ignored, unenforced, and mocked by the courts, that country is on it's deathbed.

cfkerchner said...

When I read the net some days I get the opinion that some people as an analogy of the eligibility issues surrounding Obama are re-discovering "America" so to speak. Many things that some are just now "discovering" and writing again have been in my lawsuit filed in January 2009, prior to Obama's inauguration. It is good that they write about these issues, but they should point out that these points are in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and direct people to Mario's blog and to learn more about the case and that someone is taking action on those points. For example Nancy Pelosi's involvement in the fraud of the 2008 election and her signing two different versions of the DNC certification of nomination form.

Here is a "Cliff Notes" table of contents for the complaint served on the various defendants. If you have not look at the complaint for awhile, you may wish to re-read this and/or the entire complaint. We have all the bases covered, imo. We just need to get into court in a trial on the merits.

and ....

The Twelve Counts charged in my case.

Feel free to pass along these links to help educate the world as to what is in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit.

CDR Kerchner

cfkerchner said...

Indeed, the Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law was the guiding legal work of that era for the founders of our nation to unify the newly freed states.

The 13 original colonies were free and independent sovereign states. The only set of guidance which could unite free and independent sovereign states were the Laws of Nature which are universal truths and as codified in the legal treatise by Emer de Vattel in his legal book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. The founders looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to unify the 13 free and independent states, not to English Common Law which they just threw off. It's silly that people think our U.S. Constitution was based on English Common Law. How could the common law of one nation, a nation the colonies just rejected, be used to unite 13 newly freed and independent states, each with their own constitutions and laws of citizenship. No to accomplish that, the founders and framers looked to universal law to unite the colony states and form a new more perfect union in the U.S. Constitution. The framers and founders where quite well versed in the Law of Nations and that is what they used to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA.

CDR Kerchner

prsmith said...

I know that I'm a day late and dollar short to this conversation but if I may. . .

Back when the Constitution was penned, when a non-citizen woman married a citizen, she automatically gained citizenship and thus any offspring would have sprung from citizen parents (plural). Today, parents can have separate citizenships (Russian, Chinese, North Korean, etc.) Would it not make sense that in keeping with the US citizenship of both parents found back then that both parents would, likewise, need to be US citizens in order to produce a 'natural born citizen' child?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


You are correct. I have written on the need for a child to be born in the United States to two U.S. citizen "parents" extensively on this blog and in my briefs to the courts.

Jon Roland said...

Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his work Les Droit des Gens (Law of Nations), taking out of context the words from Book I:

§ 212. ... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

But he was writing of the rule of jus sanguinis that was municipal law (not the law of nations) for countries on the European Continent. A little further down, he explains:

§ 214. ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes. The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups). However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire. The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.

However, jus sanguinis prevailed in many Eastern and Central European countries at the time Vattel wrote, and spread to other countries on the European continent. It displaced jus soli in Britain in 1983 and in France in 1993, mainly in response to immigration of persons of different ethnicity.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


The problem that I have with your argument is that the historical and legal record demonstrates that while the states may have adopted the English common law jus soli rule when they selectively adopted the English common law after July 4, 1776, the national government never did. On the contrary, among other evidence, the early naturalization Acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) and cases of the United States Supreme Court (see, for example, Minor v. Happersett (1875)), show that the national government adopted the jus sanguinis rule of citizenship of the law of nations and not the jus soli one of the English common law. The jus sanguinis rule was consistent with the Enlightenment teachings of John Locke, who espoused that government was based on consent of the governed and the right to expatriation. It was also consistent with the teachings of Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers favorite publicist on the law of nations. Finally, it was also consistent with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which also advocated Locke's consent-based theories of government and citizenship. The Framers were familiar with what Vattel wrote in Section 214 regarding the jus soli rule of England and they rejected it for national citizenship and replaced it with the jus sanguinis rule put forth by Vattel in Section 212.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Jon said... " ... Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel ,,,"

You've obviously spent time seeking the TRUTH on the question of the attendant circumstances at birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen that constitutes being in congruity with the term of words usage and intent at A2S1C5 of the COTUS.

I would ask that you look a bit further, and closer.

You NARROWLY look at Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis, even though there is not one scintilla of evidence that either were in the considerations of the U.S. Congress when they wrote the 1790 Act; " an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization ..."

Look at the pertinent provisions, numbered here for the purpose of analysis;

(1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

(2) 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:

(3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Reading them in the order written a pattern is sensed and reading them in reverse reveals the SOURCE of the pattern and the SOURCE of U.S. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH, simple stated without fanfare, bugles or tommes of manuscripts describing the doctrine, simply; " ... the right of citizenship ..." acknowledging again that the entire Act was specifically dealing with U.S. Citizenship, and NOT Greek, Italian, Roman, English, German or any other whatsoever, ONLY U.S. Citizenship which once obtained carried with it the RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP for the children of its U.S. Citizens parents.

So, I will continue to challenge any person to disprove the characterization I make of the "established uniform Rule of US. Citizenship once obtained...i.e.,

" Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world ..." (slc)

... , expressed in the general static sense remaining true to applications in the dynamic cases while being subject to exceptions, conditions, and provisos.

It is true that Vattel's children of citizen parents MUST derive their RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP from some source other than self-declaration, but you'll note that both jus soli and jus sanguinis are discarded by the proviso of #3.

Many suggest that it is just the "implied understanding" that the Framers were familiar with Vattel and the reference to "law of nations" regarding maritime affairs obligated the Congress to let "nature have with the children of U.S. Citizens".

The 1st Congress was much more precise than the succinct 276 word Act suggests, without very careful reading in CONTEXT of WHO they were addressing to.

Challenge stands.