Posted on 04/02/2010 2:13:33 PM PDT by rxsid
"Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have know how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. He giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. Given this time-honored definition, which has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and some lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
..."
Continued: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2485787/posts
The Left Claims They Can’t Find Anyone Who Says Obamacare is Illegal
http://www.stlgs.org/natProcess.htm
interesting enough the 1856 election Republicans worried about the huge fraudulent naturalization of aliens in Pennsylvania(by democrats) in return for their votes..
see the footnote #10 at page 139 from link below. Some interesting reading about Fremont and the election and his birth controversy
Technical Editor said: The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours. If you are a U.S. citizen now, and you never were naturalized as a U.S. citizen, then you are a natural born citizen.
It's not drivel; it's the truth. It's U.S. law. An anchor baby can grow up to be president if people vote for him or her, because an anchor baby is a natural born citizen. Whether anyone would, however, is an open question, but we see that a lot of airheads voted for Obama, who had a lot against him besides an uncertain birth story. Ever heard of a child born to illegal immigrants who had to go through a naturalization process? Of course not. They are citizens by birth, natural born citizens. That's what all the ruckus is about regarding illegal immigrants (or at least part of the ruckus). They qualify for all the rights and services reserved for American citizens simply by being born here. Aren't all you opponents of illegal immigration talking about that fact as well as the general outrageousness of the illegals being here illegally and tolerated both by government and business?
Once again: If you never had to go through the naturalization process to become an American Citizen, and you are presently a citizen of the United States, then you were either:
One more time:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours.
So if you were born in a foreign country the citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours? Drivel. By your thinking a foundling can be President according to statute.
Still waiting for you to post the State department opinion...hint there is a difference between a citizen per statute and natural born citizen for Constitutional eligibility purposes...
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
One more time...heck probably a thousand more times. 1401 does not define who is a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".
They obviously haven’t read here:
parsy, who says a lot of these guys are professors of law.
They obviously haven’t read here:
parsy, who says a lot of these guys are professors of law.
Sorry, I see you were referring to the link I sent you and not the thread we are on.
Here’s another....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/02/100-percent-repeal-of-obamacare/
On the health care stuff. One of the Volokh guys has already debated the issue on the radio. Others there have their doubts, too. Volokh is kinda conservative.
parsy
I posted Post #129 for you, not me.;)
I didn’t read it - I’m going on empty right now.
No problem. You have to work your way thru Volokh but there are several very reasoned threads/arguments about why HCR is unconstitutional, and at least one radio show.
parsy
DUH! lol. your right. most deffinately. thanks!
If he wasn’t born in country, to two citizen parents...he wan’t eligible then, nor now per the intent and understanding of the men who wrote the requirement into the Constitution.
Thanks.
As for why American’s in 1856, may or may not (you’ve given no sources) have questioned his status...the obvious answer would be, you’d need to ask them. As was already pointed out, it’s a moot issue as he wasn’t elected POTUS. Anyone, even a resident alien green card holder, can run for POTUS. There is no Constitutional requirement that one must be NBC in order to run for office.
TE says: The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours -- if and only if you are born in the United States.
So if you were born in a foreign country the citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours?
No. You need to read 1401. It tells you about that circumstance and what is required.
Drivel. By your thinking a foundling can be President according to statute.
You are misunderstanding what "according to statute" means here in this context. It does not mean that you cannot have a statute that defines who is a citizen at birth (a natural born citizen). It means that if a statute says all resident aliens are now declared U.S. citizens, those citizens are not natural born.
Still waiting for you to post the State department opinion...hint there is a difference between a citizen per statute and natural born citizen for Constitutional eligibility purposes...You are misunderstanding what "according to statute" means here in this context. It does not mean that you cannot have a statute that defines who is a citizen at birth (a natural born citizen). It means that if a statute says all resident aliens are now declared U.S. citizens, those citizens are not natural born.
There have been statutes enacted that take classes of people and make them U.S. citizens by that statute only. Those are the U.S. citizens that are not natural born citizens.
I post what I wish to post only, not what you attempt to manipulate me to post.
If, to you, “citizen at birth” doesn’t mean “natural born citizen,” we are on two different planets, I think. We know that NBC is nowhere “defined,” so we have to think a little. One day it will click for you, but only if you get out of your echo chamber. You thumb your nose at U.S. law, so I guess there’s just no hope for you. You are like a schizophrenic and his visions of things that aren’t there. If you ever return to reality, you’ll understand that 1401 tells you who is a natural born citizen. If you knew how to determine what a reputable source of information about legal issues is, you’d have moved on to other things by now. I hope you come to your senses someday.
I am well versed in Citizenship and Immigration Law, and its previous versions. I don't need to read 1401. The applicable law was the McCarren-Walter Act of 1952. You need to understand the difference between a statute and the Constitution. Since you refuse to do any research I will point you to the State Depatment statement:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes .
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.