3 Responses to “state legislatures need to pass statutes, banning sharia law courts, as incompatible with US constitution”

1. Anthony Verburgt
   October 9th, 2010 @ 8:25 am

   In my opinion, the separation of state and church clause of the U.S. Constitution is the perfect example as to why we should not want to go down that road. Islam, Mohammedanism, Muslim or whatever name you give is incompatible with our system of government, as their religion is a theocracy which by its very nature is the inseparable powers of church and state. It can not stand here and with their intent of all or none they must not ever get a foothold as they intend to conquer by incrimentalism.

2. Megan
   October 9th, 2010 @ 8:45 am

   This is a very good idea! How can we get this started?

3. bob strauss
   October 10th, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

   Pay Attention Obots: Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French “naturels” to mean “natural born”
   ObamaRelease YourRecords on 12:05 PM

   Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French “naturels” to mean “natural born” – by: Teo the Bear @ TheBirthers.org

   Found in the Library of Congress Website

   If you look at Article III in the body of the text below, you will see,

   Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d’autrui.

   Going down further to the end you will find under number 3,

   The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other

   Translation by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress

   This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the 1797 translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This accepted translation of ‘naturel’ in 1781, predates John Jay’s 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.

   [Comment by CDR K: This ‘naturels’ means ‘natural born’ translation in 1781 was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel’s Law of Nation, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that is, “natural-born Citizens, are those born in the country, to parents who are citizens”. Many of the founders and framers were fluent in French since it was the diplomatic language of that time. Thus when the founders and framers wrote the Constitution in 1787 they clearly knew what “natural born Citizen” meant when they upgraded the Citizenship requirement in Article II from simply being a “born Citizen” as proposed by Hamilton to that of being a “natural born Citizen” as recommended by Jay as a strong check against foreign influence on the persons in the future who would be President and Commander of the military. And that meaning was understood to be a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country. Such a person has sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the United States. That was the intent of the founders and framers for that legal term of art, natural born Citizen, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This restriction on the type of Citizen who could be President was a national security issue to them back then and it is still a national security issue to us now.]

Leave a Reply