Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Technical Editor
A person born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. A person born of two U.S. citizens is a "natural born" U. S. Citizen, according to Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, Alexander Hamilton (a signer of the U. S. Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 stated, “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, The Law of Nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.” Clearly, Hamilton, himself, was aware of the writers of the U.S. Constitution use of Vattel’s Laws of Nations to form the basis of Article ll, Section l of the U.S. Constitution in its wording, meaning, and definitions

"The Law of Nations” provides the writers of the U.S. Constitution with the definition of a “natural born" citizen as follows:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents"...plural. Therefore, in terms of the intent of the writers of Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, according to Hamilton, himself, a natural born U.S. citizen is a person born of two U.S. Citizens.

ex animo

davidfarrar

476 posted on 07/07/2009 11:35:36 AM PDT by DavidFarrar (Constitution, 2nd Amendment,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies ]


To: DavidFarrar
Hamilton was not referring to a particular book. He was referring to the broad area of international law as it was commonly referred to in the colonies. You are making the novice's error of looking at the words, and because they are capitalized, thinking they are a title of a written work. No reputable scholar makes this fundamental error. Look at a printed version of the Constitution that retains the original text as it was written. You will find many words capitalized, because that was the style of the day. Your conclusions are faulty, and I would advise you to stop reading the writings of psychologically unbalanced people who advance this ridiculously uneducated theory.
477 posted on 07/08/2009 8:23:08 AM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson