Friday, April 23, 2010

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

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:

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


Dixhistory said...

Treason and racketeering is what it comes down to.

If this conduct is allowed to stand, there is no law. Only brute power, will rule over America.

Anonymous said...

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

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

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)


[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874)

“ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen ...shall be eligible to the office of President’…
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”

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


[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.

jayjay said...

Great document ... and a great piece also Charles.

Everyone should read it to find out that Vattel's influence was, indeed, pervasive in the then newly-formed Constitution and country as you clearly show.

Anonymous said...

It appears, from the excerpt below that the subject of ‘citizenship’ was well considered 2,000 years before Vattel and informed him well……….

By Aristotle


By Aristotle

Written 350 B.C.E

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

Book Three Part II
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.”

Larry said...

The paid to lie Obots are really running scared this week, just take a look at all the propaganda "news" stories they've been busy fabricating in an effort to brainwash the public. They may as well be writing comic books, they're not fooling anyone. I have yet to discover even one of their "news" stories that is based on a single scintilla of factual information. Sorry, Obots, but at this point in time, the majority of Citizens in this nation already know "0" is DEFINITELY NOT a "natural born Citizen" and our numbers are growing by the minute - it's only a matter of time until the pressure on "0" will become greater than he can endure, then he'll resign and move out. Ask anyone on the street about "0"s lack of Constitutional eligibility, at least 85% are VERY AWARE "0" is illegally holding office and the other 15% (delusional liberals) can't even remember what they had for lunch today. You idiot Obots go ahead and keep on spreading obvious lies and mocking the facts, you've been a tremendous help to OUR cause, not "0"s. "0" = Nixon (I'm old enough to remember Nixon denying everything until the very last minute - just like "0"). I'll chip in $5 to help "0" rent a do it yourself moving truck, but that's all the "help" he'll EVER receive from me! Give ALL the criminals in Washington the boot! Politicians are NOT royalty, they're our employees and they better act like it!

Barnieca said...

P. Barnett says-

It is amazing.. It's like George Washington has come from the grave to help us in our battle to save the country that he had helped to found..

Hopefully President Washington and the other founders can keep helping us get our country back from the hands of a foreign Usurper.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I have presented a catalog of evidence for and against the proposition that Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. My essay can be read at I wanted to share with the readers of this blog Paragraph 18 of my essay:

"(18) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information which Obama supporters claim shows that Obama was born in Honolulu. Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. We do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root "evidence" is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.

Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides in pertinent part that a "certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents." It also states: "The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter."

Obama alleges he was born in Kapi'olani Medical Center. At no time in the debate has any official from Hawaii at least informed the pubic that Obama's alleged vital records show that his birth certificate from 1961 was "completed and filed" with the health department in Honolulu by some official of that hospital or a physician or midwife associated with that institution. If Obama was born in a hospital as he claims, we cannot reasonably believe that his birth certificate would have been completed and filed by one of his parents. Additionally, under this statute, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi'olani Medical Center to confirm Obama's alleged Hawaiian birth. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there. Hawaii has withheld this underlying evidence from the public. This withholding of evidence is a grave matter given that there exists such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama, the putative President and Commander in Chief of our military might, was in fact born in Hawaii.

We will know what the underlying evidence is only if we can examine Obama's contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which is readily available since Obama claims he was born in Kapi'olani Medical Center in 1961. That root document will tell us the name of the hospital in which he was born and the name of the doctor or midwife who delivered him. Those pieces of information are highly corroborative of the place and time of birth, for they provide a whole other dimension of contemporaneous facts that would support Hawaii's or anybody else's bare statement as to the place and time of Obama's birth;"

The reason I bring Section 338-5 to the attention of the public is because as we can see, any birth certificate has to be completed and filed by some institution (hospital) or person (doctor, midwife, or parent). This statute also shows that Hawaii has the authority to confirm any reported birth by examining medical records. While Hawaii pretends to have come clean with the American public, it did not even provide such basic information or counduct such due diligence which would at least give us greater assurance that Obama's birth record is genuine.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

jayjay said...


Excellent points on HI 338-5 since it means that for BHO's parents to have filed his BC (as opposed to a hospital doing so with appropriate doctor ID) the parents would have to have been the ONLY legally-eligible persons in attendance at his birth.

Certainly in 1961 (and despite the slipshod HI practices) NO hospital there would allow a delivery of a child without one or more doctors or other medical professionals in attendance. If they did so they would have their accreditation by the JCAH rescinded forthwith.

So that's MERELY another series of lies by the whole bunch of Obama-lovers and other Flying Monkeys.

I still think it's like Cecero (the senator of some note) said:

"A nation can survive its' fools, and
even the ambitious. But it cannot
survive treason from within.

An enemy at the gates is less
formidable, for he is known and he
carries his banners openly. But the
traitor moves among those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers
rustling through all the galleys,
heard in the very hall of
government itself.

For the traitor appears not a
traitor--He speaks in the accents
familiar to his victims, and wears
their face and their garment, and
he appeals to the baseness that
lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation--he
works secretly and unknown in the
night to undermine the pillars of a
city--he infects the body politic so
that it can no longer resist. A
murderer is less to be feared."

Cicero, 42 B.C., Roman Statesman,
orator, and author.

Larry said...

The Usurper = One Big Anandrious Mistake, America. The archimime must go!

Larry said...

Do you recall who made history by being the first to investigate the "natural born Citizen" status of a candidate and issue a Senate resolution?
"110th CONGRESS"
"2d Session"
"S. RES. 511"
"Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen."
April 10, 2008"
"Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, ***Mr. OBAMA***, Mr. COBURN, ***Mrs. CLINTON***, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary." WOW! We've tracked down the original "birthers"! OBAMA IS A HUGE HYPOCRITE!

The Stacker said...


"Additionally, under this statute, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi'olani Medical Center to confirm Obama's alleged Hawaiian birth. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there."

You are exactly right.

As I've pointed out here and elsewhere, the ONLY REAL THING we can be certain of is that he was not born at Kapiolani. Remember my points?

The best one is allowing Kapiolani to just say, "Yes, we have the record of his birth here and we are publicly announcing it."

That would obviate the need for any sort of online birth certificate or other action such as digging up a birth announcement, friends testimony, other BS, etc. It would render anything we say totally moot.

But HE HAS NOT DONE IT, because HE WASN'T BORN THERE. Guaranteed.

What's more interesting? He himself (nor anyone else even in his family, I think, but I know he himself never) never verified or said on record that he was born there.


The whole issue is discussed when WND tried to follow it up. The White House NEVER confirmed that they sent that missive (the letter congratulating them on their anniversary, in which he also said he was born there) to Kapiolani.

The date of the letter is January 24, 2009 which I believe was a few days after his inauguration.

He has played the whole issue upside down because he doesn't care and thinks no one can touch him. Up to this point, he is right. But the fact still remains that he wasn't born there and he has never said he was, nor will anyone in his administration confirm that he sent that letter.

In summary, it is totally UNreasonable to believe he was born at Kapiolani. It's the one thing I know for sure.

If Arizona passes the eligibilty bill, it will be challenged, but rest assured that he will never show the original vital statistics willingly. He'll even forego another term of the presidency not to show. The problem is that when he doesn't run, we won't know for sure, but even the idiots of the world will be flabbergasted. Even they will be forced to consider, in this unprecedented situation (of an incumbent not running or foregoing AZ's electoral votes), "Are the birthers on to something?"

What do you think of the idea, Mario?

John Smith said...

So, what do we do about it?

Two other topics to consider, develop, and comment upon: The president's oath of office as prescribed by the US Constitution and the circumstances of birth of Zachary Taylor.

Isn't it interesting that the president's oath of office requires that he swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not simply to preserve, protect, and defend the Untied States? I find this choice of language suggests the framers of the Constitution recognized implicitly that the country the United States existed before the adoption of the Constitution, under a different government - that one established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The framers of the Constitution required the president to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the new government of the country, not simply the country. Conventional wisdom has lost this explicit awareness.

Conventional wisdom also tells us that it's sufficient that a person be born exclusively in the country the United States to be a natural born citizen. But examining the president's oath of office lends support to the idea that a person must be born exclusively in the government established by the US Constitution to be a natural born citizen.

President Zachary Taylor was born in the United States, in Virginia in November 1784, after the Declaration of Independence (1776), after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (1781), after Great Britain recognized independence (1783), after the Congress of the Confederation ratified (January 1784) the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War, after George III ratified the Treaty of Paris (April 1784).

Zachary Taylor was born in the Untied States and was a citizen of the Untied States from the moment of his birth. So why doe the US Constitution extend to him the exemption from the requirement to be a natural born citizen? Were the framers of the Constitution just sloppy, or did Zachary Taylor need the exemption?

Although Presidents Taylor and Obama have taken the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Untied States, and although they were born in the United States, and although they were US citizens from the moment of their birth in the United States, their circumstances at birth require exemption from the natural born citizen requirement because they were not natural born citizens of the Untied States because they were not born under the exclusive jurisdiction of the government created by the Constitution of the Untied States.

jayjay said...

John Smith:

Z. Taylor was born BEFORE there was a United States so that he and several other of the early US Presidents fell under the grandfather clause. That's simple enough since if there weren't a US, he could not have been a nbC under the Constitutional requirement - nor could Washingtonk etc.

As for Obama, I find it a bit of a stretch to compare his time and circumstances of birth to be such that he fell under the grandfather clause as did Taylor.

In fact, no one (Obama or you) has yet proved the new guy was born in the US (or anyplace else for that matter) but there's lots of evidence pointing to the fact that he was not born in the US ... but that hardly matters since he's admitted that daddy was a Kenyan and the he also was governed by the same British law.

Bill Cutting said...


Uh No,

A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States: treated historically By Prentiss Webster

Bill Cutting said...

Just a follow up comment,
I suggest reading the whole book. It is pure gold!!

A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States: treated historically
By Prentiss Webster

Bill Cutting said...

"To repeat what has already been set forth as the rule prior to 1836, it must be affirmed that neither jus soli nor allegiance in the English sense and meaning had any thing whatever to do with the acquisition of citizenship in the United States.

In England these rules went to the form of government. In the United States the government was organized on principles of contract as between men, in direct antagonism to the English form of government

The use of the term " allegiance " has no technical place in the jurisprudence of the United States in its feudal meaning.

Technically it should be said that the citizen has taken an oath to support the constitution and the laws of the United States. This is done by every citizen, either expressly or impliedly, before he enjoys full rights of citizenship.

In taking the oath, no personal relation is entered into with the government of the United States. It is a relation which is created by a citizen with his fellow citizens. By it he affirms and agrees to the continuation of the contract on which his government is founded. It is an expression of truthful intent to abide by and obey the laws which the citizens enact for themselves, from among themselves.


" All persons bom in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States."

For the reasons already given, the common law rule, as known in England, was not adopted by the United States, in its application to citizens."

cfkerchner said...


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

CDR Kerchner

John Smith said...

johnjay, you've misread my post.

The purpose of my post is twofold. First, to debunk the conventional wisdom which has lead us to this situation, namely that birth solely in the Untied States is the only qualification to being a natural born citizen.

Second, to define an Article II natural born citizen of the Untied States by using only the Constitution as a source of authority.

My post attempts to show that it is not only possible for a person to have been born solely in the Untied States and still not be a natural born citizen, but also that we have a flesh-and-blood example of such a circumstance in President Zachary Taylor.

Zachary Taylor was born solely in the United States, but he was not born solely under the allegiance of the US Constitution. He was born solely under the allegiance of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, a different government than the one established by the US Constitution. For this reason, the framers of the Constitution extended to him the exemption from being a natural born citizen so long as he was born before the new government replaced the old government (without regard to place of birth).

The presidential oath of office is not simply to the United States, but rather to the specific government of the United States established by the Constitution. Natural born citizen has the same limitation to government, not simply to country.

This is why simply being born solely in the Untied States does not alone qualify a person to be a natural born citizen for the purposes of eligibility to the presidency. Rather, the person must be born solely in the jurisdiction of or allegiance to the Constitution.

Like Zachary Taylor and George Washington, Barack Obama was not born solely with allegiances to the US Constitution, and therefore cannot be a natural born citizen of the Untied States for the purposes of presidential eligibility under the Constitution. Unlike Taylor and Washington, Obama does not enjoy the exemption.

Conventional wisdom is debunked simply by reading the Constitution. (No Vattel necessary. No US v. Wong Kim Ark necessary.)

cfkerchner said...

Natural Law was the guiding legal work of that era for the founders of our nation to unify the newly freed sovereign 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