Posted on 07/09/2015 9:51:39 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
eek
I think you are right. I believe that if you were to get a hold of his university transcripts you will find that he lied and said he was a foreign student to get into occidental college and into Harvard law school. I think he actually took scholarship money with those claims.
Well, they do say what I'm claiming. Why the doubt? I was rubbing your nose in this earlier. Here's Wilson:
"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."
And -- inexplicably under your view of Bingham's comments -- neither he nor anyone else has further words to say on the manifest contradiction between his view and Wilson's. And would Bingham somehow have been out of touch with Wilson on this issue? That hardly seems likely. On the page you linked earlier (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291), Bingham remarks, regarding the equal rights provision:
"I understand very well, from private conversations I have had with my learned friend, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee . . ."
So, Bingham, the Chairman of the Subcommittee charged with Reconstruction amendments had close private conversations with, Wilson, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. No big shocker there.
BUT, in DiogenesLamp's nutso historical world view, Bingham was espousing a view on natural born citizenship very much at odds with his "learned friend" James Wilson, yet neither of them give the slightest indication whatsoever there's a disagreement. That is a fatuous view on history, one borne solely of your desperation to put Bingham in your camp so you can in Birther-fashion claim the "father of the 14th Amendment." (The label sounds good, but unfortunately for Birthers, Bingham wasn't the draftsman of the clause at issue).
The more rational view here is that Bingham wasn't at odds with Wilson, and that is borne out by Bingham's later remarks:
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"
What Wilson stated and what Bingham here stated align perfectly.
Rawle was espousing the jus soli view in his Freedom Cases filed in Pennsylvania courts in the late 1790s
And what cases were those? Is this what you have in mind? Cases Before Michael Reppele. In that case Rawle argues successfully based on a clause apparently added in 1780 to the Pennsylvania Constitution relating to children of slaves born in the state. I see no where in any of these materials where one peep is said about birthright citizenship.
Also from the Historical Society of Pennsylvania
William Rawle, a young local attorney, was a critical member of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society as it re-oriented its strategy in the mid-1780s, focusing more on aggressive legal action to aid aggrieved slaves and free blacks. He often successfully sued in defense of his black clients, winning a more secure freedom for many of them. In 1785, Rawle lived at 341 Arch Street. Macpherson’s Directory for the City and Suburbs of Philadelphia (1785), 116.
Where are you getting this bit about "the courts were having none of his jus soli nonsense? It seems another of your historical fails is about to unfold here, but I'll await what evidence you may have before holding forth.
Demonstrating your ignorance once more. Read up on Jefferson's and Monroe's efforts to stop English subjects from posing as Americans in the run up to the war of 1812.
Another of your nonsequitturs. Englishmen posing as Americans as war tensions mount is a more a matter of espionage than it is immigration policy.
It says the 14th amendment citizenship is not the equivalent of "natural born citizen." In a case specifically about the 14th amendment, they say:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
How on earth do you take:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens
and wind up with that meaning:
It says the 14th amendment citizenship is not the equivalent of "natural born citizen."??
"The Constitution does not, in words, say .. " Right. The Constitution states the term "natural born citizen," but doesn't not attempt to further delineate or classify who those persons are. The constitution doesn't in words say that children of citizen parents are NBC; it doesn't say they aren't. The Constitution doesn't in words say that children of aliens aren't NBC; it doesn't say they are.
When we get to WKA, the Court elaborates on this point:
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." . . .
* * * The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar 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 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.
So "NBC" is not defined in the Constitution except insofar as the 14th Amendment states that "persons born . . . in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction" are citizens. Gray makes clear the 14th Amendment language "defines" in part the term "natural born citizen."
And what Gray right on this point? Yes, as we know from the legislative history to the 14th Amendment that Congress very much intended the citizenship provision to be a declaration of existing law. And the only "existing law" as to birth citizenship was that of "natural born citizen."
Your contention that that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with "natural born citizen" is, once again, demonstrated to be WRONG. But, I see the ostrich about to bury his head and cry "It's too long! I can't read that much! I will ignore it!"
Is that racist?
5.56mm
How do the Hawaii newspaper birth announcements fit into your theory? If what Stanley and Toots were trying to do is hide the embarrassing fact of their high school daughter being knocked up by a philandering black dude (which, I'll grant, for many in 60's America would be scandalous), then why on earth do you report the pregnancy to Hawaii DOH immediately following the birth? (The general Birther view is this was self-reported, as the hospital reporting it nails tight the cover on the Birther coffin door.)
Another question is whether Stanley Ann, being then still a minor, would have had the final say on adoption. If Gramps and Toots wanted there to be an adoption, my sense is they could have forced it. 1961 was during what was called the "Baby Scoop Era":
When pregnancy occurred, teens during the Baby Scoop Era had limited options: marry or surrender the child for adoption. The expecting couple, however, did not make the choice; their parents did.
So, Mr. Occam isn't quite persuaded yet.
GENTLEMAN: What will we do, assuming Obama does leave office, and after fundamentally transforming America (code words for ruining it) it turns out he really WAS born in Kenya, and thus, was never legally President? What WILL we do?
Right. Which is why I don't post much here and only infrequently, so I can get attention. [eyeroll] Coming from the man who has been all over these for years with 1000's of posts, this comment is a hoot.
But your championing Mario Apuzzo and claiming he wins the debate clearly has to be simply on account you know he advocates for Vattel. It can't be that you've read Mario -- who scarcely posts anything that is under 10,000 words -- let alone the rebuttals to his endless posts.
The consistent jus soli view of "existing law" espoused within the 39th Congress means two things: 1) that Horace Gray didn't misread or ignore 14th Amendment history (it seems I've gotten you now to abandon that bit of nonsense) and 2) that your Article II claim fails. Here's the reasoning that sinks you for good.
1. The 39th Congress clearly stated: a) that the citizenship clauses of the C.R.A. and 14th Amendment were simply declaratory of existing law and b) by overwhelming preponderance of testimony their view of "existing law" was jus soli as to the native born (i.e., natural born citizens, as there was no "other" category of native born citizens who were not natural born citizens).
2. Given 1. above, then your Article II claim fails. A simple logical diagram suffices: If the 39th Congress is correct that "exist law" was jus soli, then they are correct on the Article II meaning and you lose. Even if the drafters (Howard, Trumbull) and the others (Wilson) and more were wrong (or the Article II meaning initially is ambiguous), by enacting an Amendment to the Constitution making clear the meaning they acribe to "natural born citizen" and making clear that "born . . . in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is intended to have that same meaning, then then the Article II term, by Amendment, henceforth has that meaning!
WKA is right no matter which way you slice this.
I’m really not interested in your opinion about what people thought at the end of the 19th century. The knowledge pool was heavily polluted by the influence of Rawle, and so there were a lot of people who learned it wrong. Obviously not all of them, but the ones who support you are the ones who had been fed wrong information, usually tracing to Rawle.
EVERYTHING is racist!
Then there is the Kenyan Parliament asking, “how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”
And newspaper articles and magazines referring to him as Kenyan born back when he was a Senator.
And the gag order on Grandma Sarah’s tribe and her saying he passed through her hands - maybe/maybe not depending on whatever.
Etc., etc., etc...
While I’m cheering everything Trump stirs up, there’s that little nagging voice that keeps chirping he’s a hired distraction. He quit before so odds are he’s still a quitter. Who knows? But it’s fun watching lib heads spin right now.
But it’s fun watching lib heads spin right now.
_______________________
It is. For sure. And watching RINO heads spin too!
What would set their heads REALLY spinning would be telling the truth -
while we don’t know for sure where Obama was born,
one thing we know for sure,
he is not CULTURALLY American.
He was raised by America-hating communists and mentored by racist communists, went to foreign schools and was indoctrinated to hate this country.
The birth citizenship rule articulated by Rawle can be traced back at least to Swift (1795). That's a mere 8 years after the Constitutional Convention. Whats your proof that Rawle was the seminal influence?
So far your attribution to Rawle is just another example of your hand-waving technique. Rawle is a handy whipping boy for you because he went to England. The problem you have is others before Rawle were saying the same thing. And your reference to the Pennsylvania Freedom cases so far is just another of your historical blunders.
And which one of the Delegates to the Convention was he?
I don't see his name listed, but perhaps he was one of the second echelon; those people in the legislature who ratified the constitution.
In 1788 he was supposed to be serving in the Connecticut Legislature, yet I don't see his name among the attendees who debated and ratified the constitution.
How is he an expert then? He missed the relevant classes it would seem.
So far your attribution to Rawle is just another example of your hand-waving technique. Rawle is a handy whipping boy for you because he went to England.
No, it's not because he went to England, but that is certainly a contributing factor. What would you learn in English Law school except English Law? (Which diverges sharply from US law in the area of Subject/Citizen.)
It's because I have researched him, and seen where he was fully informed that his notions on citizenship were wrong, but rather than believe what he had been taught by other more authoritative figures, he went ahead and published a book with the deliberate intention of misleading people.
The problem you have is others before Rawle were saying the same thing. And your reference to the Pennsylvania Freedom cases so far is just another of your historical blunders.
Not at all. I know of a case with Rawle being lead counsel in which put forth his citizenship theory and was rebuked unanimously by the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in probably the worst defeat of his career. I'll leave you to look for which one I'm talking about. :)
BUMP. Reading catch up.
winner winner chicken dinner
He served in the 3rd Congress, and so would have had discourse with others who had been at the Convention.
But given that there is NO record of any debate or discussion at the Constitutional Convention or thereafter (e.g., Federalist Papers), what makes the Convention the "relevant class?" It's hardly a class that doesn't discuss the issue.
From what the historical record tells us, the term "natural born citizen" was included in the text and adopted without any controversy. That signifies that the term had an already understood and accepted meaning in 1787. Well, what would that meaning have been? I've already run you through this part at least a half-dozen times.
We have multiple, DOCUMENTED instances starting as early as 1777 (e.g., the Vermont Constitution) of "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" being in interchangeable fashion. Zephaniah Swift even uses "natural born subject" in his treatise when articulating the jus soli view as to state citizenship. And the natural law foundations of "natural born subject" (stemming from Calvin's Case and Blackstone) -- under which all persons within the realm of parents in amity with the sovreign were "natural born" -- were well-known. By contrast, there is NO documented usage in English of "natural born citizen" prior to 1787 where the term conveyed the sense "from like parents."
So -- again -- it strains credibility past the breaking point to suggest that the Framers adopted a term already in use, that had a prior interchangeable usage with its common law predecessor NBS, but that they adopted NBC intending a new meaning but left absolutely no record of debate or discussion that is what they were doing!
Your historical read here much like your take on the Bingham comments in the 39th Congress -- where you take the position he was at odds with his "learned friend" James Wilson, the Judiciary Chairman with whom Bingham had private conversations, but the Congressional record is devoid of any indication they (or anyone) viewed those two at odds over "natural born citizen."
Zephaniah Swift didn't need to be at the Convention. He was a Congressman and later federal judge, which is sufficient qualifications. The Convention didn't discuss what "NBC" meant, and Swift articulates the very jus soli rule that pre-Convention "NBS/NBC" usage clearly indicates.
As to Rawle, there is no reason why Rawle would have had a different understanding of "natural born citizen" than Swift.
I'll leave you to look for which one I'm talking about.
This discussion (like any rational debate) follows the "your claim, your proof" rule. You're claiming that Rawle was articulating the jus soli in the 1790's. It's your proof. (Given that George Washington appointed Rawle in 1791 to be U.S. District Attorney, showing Rawle held to the jus soli view even closer in time to the Convention only strengthens my argument. But go ahead.)
In any case, the point I made in my previous post still stands: with the 39th Congress and ratification of the 14th Amendment, you lose either way. Even if the meaning of "natural born citizen" was left ambiguous at the start, by affixing a clear consensus that the Congress understood "existing law" of natural born citizen to be jus soli as to the native born and indicating the 14A birth citizenship language has that same meaning, then by Amendment any ambiguity has been resolved and henceforth "natural born citizen" HAS THAT MEANING.
Where the absolutely most important issue being discussed was the meaning of "natural born citizen." More like, everyone just assumed the rest knew what it meant, and the issue was noncontroversial.
But given that there is NO record of any debate or discussion at the Constitutional Convention or thereafter (e.g., Federalist Papers), what makes the Convention the "relevant class?" It's hardly a class that doesn't discuss the issue.
Because they are the men who wrote it, and if you look at where and why they stripped English Law out of our governance, it becomes apparent that they intended to strip English law out of citizenship too.
Likewise if you read the ratification debates of the several states, Vattel and Law of Nations is mentioned quite a lot, and so therefore it is safe to conclude that the various legislatures regarded the documents under discussion to be related to his work. Indeed, the very ideas of "Revolution" and "Independence" comes from Vattel, and no one else.
That signifies that the term had an already understood and accepted meaning in 1787.
Yes it did, and that meaning was clarified by it's usage in 1776, and it wasn't "natural born subject."
In fact, the Usage of the word "Citizen" is pretty much a consequence of Vattel's "Le droit des gens, et les devoirs des citoyens, ou principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite des affaires des nations et des souverains".
It was an uncommonly used word up to that point. Vattel's work is what made it popular. Subsequent usage of the word "citizen" is an oblique reference to Vattel.
Zephaniah Swift didn't need to be at the Convention. He was a Congressman and later federal judge, which is sufficient qualifications.
Au contraire. The default position of those who do not know what was the intent of the Congress is "English law." They simply make an assumption because they are ignorant.
It's your proof. (Given that George Washington appointed Rawle in 1791 to be U.S. District Attorney, showing Rawle held to the jus soli view even closer in time to the Convention only strengthens my argument.
Yeah, well look up who he Appointed to that same Position just prior to Rawle. If you have forgotten him, he is the guy that trained Samuel Roberts in the law. I find no record that Samuel Roberts ever attended law school, and it would appear he learned everything he knew from William Lewis.
I'm pretty sure you remember Samuel Roberts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.