DL makes an argument on another thread that Rawle’s view was not the authoritative view, and it is a point worth considering. Rawle’s personal friendship with Washington, Franklin etc is not to be lightly dismissed, but neither is it decisive. At the founding, there was a transition underway that left a crazy quilt of conflicting definitions for citizenship, as DL’s post here describes:
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/2821875/posts?page=119#119
Nor is Jefferson’s presidency determinative, as the NBC clause specifically grandfathered in the founding generation as a second category of eligible persons. This was a matter of necessity, as it might be difficult to fill the office of president if the stricter rule were applied during that transitional period at the beginning. Indeed, there would have been no need for the grandfathering loophole if the NBC criteria could be easily met by the political luminaries in that first American generation.
Bottom line, this is in fact a very complicated question, and it is best answered by those whom we have granted the authority to say what the law is, our judiciary, and they have not yet spoken with finality on the exact facts of this case.
Thanks! I’ll check it out.
Cheers!
I understand, and I have read DL's earlier post. His points are not new.
By the way, the fact that DL attempts to argue against Rawle (and a bunch of other evidence) is a clear sign of his commitment to the birther fantasy.
Here we have a man who was VERY close to both Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. He met with them in Franklin's home, regularly, just prior to the Constitutional Convention.
He says, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that the US-born children of aliens are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
And here you have DL trying to argue against him.
And with what?
If birthers had an equally strong statement, from an equally strong authority, that would allow them NOT to prevail, but just to PULL EVEN.
But they don't.
Here we have clear evidence that President Thomas Jefferson was a DUAL CITIZEN... WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Well, we can just dismiss that as well.
On what basis? Well... mumble, mumble. Because we don't like it.
And so they try to dismiss real evidence, after real evidence, after real evidence.
And replace it with what? "Vattel says..." SO WHAT? Show me where ONE FOUNDER, ANY Founder, said that he ever listened to vattel on citizenship.
Yeah, but Ben Franklin said he liked Vattel.
So? I like cream cheese. It doesn't mean I read the packet for the definition of natural born citizen.
And meanwhile Vattel says we absolutely MUST restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the elites and the military ONLY. Well, isn't that what the liberals are arguing when they say the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to the state, and not to individuals?
So if the Founding Fathers listened to Vattel on citizenship, then why the hell didn't they listen to him on the right to keep and bear arms? Or did they? So I guess we need to hand in all of our guns. Because the liberals are right.
Because Ben Franklin "liked" Vattel. Because Ben Franklin said a polite "thank you" for three books.
I'll answer DL's nonsense in the thread you mentioned in another post.
We don't like Ben Franklin's friend. We don't like George Washington's friend. So we can just tell him to kiss off.
By the way, don't ever believe that birthers are friends of the Founding Fathers. They aren't.
So kiss off, Will. We don't like what you have to say.
So then he gives four supposed examples to try and prove his point.
His first is Jefferson. Well, that's a mistake, because Jefferson contradicts him as well. Let's see what Jefferson has to say, in that 1779 law. Here's the part that's relevant:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,
that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth
and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,
and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth;
and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:
And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
So Jefferson lists a bunch of categories of people who all get to be citizens. Let's take out all the superfluous categories and cut to the chase:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,
that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth...
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed.
Now have I done any violence to this text? No, I have not. I just removed a bunch of categories to focus on the one category that's really relevant.
Jefferson says ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN IN VIRGINIA get to be citizens of Virginia.
This is STRAIGHT JUS SOLI. Absolutely no citizen parents required. ALL WHITE PERSONS born in Virginia are citizens.
So Thomas Jefferson goes for straight jus soli. That is a complete contradiction to DL.
In other words, Thomas Jefferson says his idea is idiotic.
Okay, that's his first example. Example two.
He talks about James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in the William Smith case. Notice what words of Madison he doesn't boldface:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
So Madison says BIRTH AND NOT PARENTAGE is WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES. Now to be sure, later on he mentions Smith's parentage as well. But he's already said: BIRTH, NOT PARENTAGE, IS WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
So James Madison goes for straight jus soli as well, which is as much as saying DL's idea is idiotic.
Gee, DL here is batting zero for two. Well, let's go on to the third example.
He correctly mentions Lynch v Clarke as "a (state)court ruling which decides that anyone born in New York of alien parents is a citizen." Good for him. In fact, Lynch v. Clarke is absolutely devastating to his claim. Lynch v. Clarke, BY ITSELF, MURDERS his birther claim, unless he has EQUALLY STRONG evidence that says the exact opposite. Here's what Lynch v. Clarke says: "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not."
Does he have ANYTHING comparable? No, of course not. But he doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke. So we'll sweep it under the rug.
By the way, do you notice how many things we're sweeping under the rug here? It's every damn bit of evidence. But let's go on.
He claims "the New York Legislature shortly thereafter passed a law to plug this particular hole [the fact he personally doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke, just like he doesn't like James Madison or William Rawle] in their citizenship laws."
So let's look up this law. Ah, here it is, in this book here.
And there's a very odd thing. That says on one of the front pages that the Commissioners of the Code were appointed on April 6, 1857. So that appears to be the date when they appointed people to write this law. And the book on it was actually published in 1859.
So you have Lynch v. Clarke, in 1844. And they responded to that... in 1857? Really? Thirteen years later?
So like, this gun control legislation that Dianne Feinstein is trying to push through now. That's a response to something that happened back in 2000, while Bill Clinton was still President?
Such an idea, that a particular law is a response to something 13 years earlier, is pretty idiotic, don't you think? I mean, really. Hey, we've got an immigration problem here. Well then, why don't we wait until the year 2026, and then do something about it?
So the only thing DL has really done here is bring up Lynch v. Clarke, because the idea that the New York Code he references is a response to that case is just preposterous.
And as we've seen, Lynch v Clarke takes a log and beats im over the head with it.
Well, let's try his Example 4.
He says, correctly, that the State of Maryland passed a law declaring the Marquis de Lafayette and all of his male descendants, forever, to be "natural born citizens" of the State of Maryland. And he says this is jus sanguinis. Well, he's right there.
But notice what they DON'T require.
Anybody here need to be a resident of the State of Maryland?
Wait a minute. I thought the purpose here was to prove that you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
That's not what the State of Maryland told the Marquis de Lafayette.
So even his example number 4 says: In this case, at least, ONE means of getting citizenship - in this case, jus sanguinis - is enough to make a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Funny. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.
So let's go for the bonus round. Finally, he brings up the Venus. Well, I don't have to shred that to little pieces. Mr Rogers has already done that for us, earlier in this thread.
So this is all the stuff that he's supposedly bringing as evidence for HIS claim. And guess what? EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING IS AGAINST HIM.
And every single time, he sweeps it under the rug and trys to use the crumbs as "evidence" for his birther claim.
And in reality, it's all against him. Not to mention William Rawle and the fact that Vattel never, EVER talks about "natural born citizens," and the fact that states used "natural born citizen" in EXACTLY the same way they used "natural born subject" before the Revolution, and all the rest of it.
So he doesn't have a case. But like all birthers, he keeps making it anyway. Because there's nothing that beats reality... like fantasy.
And do you know what the birther MO is?
Any time you have an argument that falls to pieces, pretend it didn’t happen. Don’t blush. Just act like it never happened.
If you have 5 arguments in a row that are total and complete nonsense, hey, that’s no sign that your theory is cracked, or that you are wrong or incompetent. Just switch to something else. Let’s talk about some other guy for a while.
And you NEVER RETRACT any of the stuff that is just total nonsense. You just save it for another day, when another audience may not know that it’s been kicked to pieces so many times you can’t even find all the pieces.
So it’s not about the truth. It’s just a game. See how many times you can recycle the same debunked arguments. See how many more people you can fool. I have no doubt DL can do it for another 5 or 10 years.
To me, citizenship seems much like the concept of claim or title in real estate.
You can't claim ownership unless the chain of claim and title to it is clear and there are no competing claims.
Citizenship is also a sort of claim or title and for the president, who has 1/3 of the government's power and supreme command of the nation's armed forces, voters are buying with their vote what they believe is a "clean title" with regard to that person and his or her loyalty to US and any other nation's claim to him or her.
The cleanest title possible, with no other claims or potential claims against it, so to speak, is that of someone born in country to citizen parents.
However you or any other entity, legal or otherwise, in the present or past has defined citizenship, everyone and everything agrees that person is a citizen of that country and no other. No other can claim that person, nor does that person have claim to any other country.
I believe that was the intent of the NBC requirement and born of citizen parents in country is the only definition that covers any and all definitions and challenges, legal or otherwise, such to grant a clear title, so to speak, of both citizenship and potential loyalty at time of birth.
Deciding inheritance claims appear to be much like determining title to real estate and both seem similar to citizenship, so the concepts are not new or unusual in law. Certainly, the FFs were aware of such legal concepts.
So, it always gets back to what was the intent of the FFs for eligibility for the highest office in the new government they were creating? What dangers, legal and otherwise, were they trying to avoid and how best to avoid them with the limits of an eligibility requirement?
Additionally, they had just won the revolution and were quite serious about loyalty and treason, just ask hero of the revolution Ben Arnold, so dismissing concerns about divided allegiance while trying to determine and understand their eligibility intentions is a mistake.
Nor have they truly studied it. Most of our Legal experts swing from one precedent to another without regards to the underlining principles upon which the previous precedent stood.
I have little doubt that the current widespread belief that being born behind our borders automatically makes you a citizen is the result of a misinterpretation of the Wong Kim Ark Decision and the 14th amendment. People have somehow conflated the term "citizen" described therein, to mean exactly the same thing as "natural born citizen."
This is demonstrably not the case as illustrated by Justice Waite in the Minor v Happersett decision in which a detailed examination of the 14th amendment has him offering these words.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
The 14th amendment says precisely "in words" who shall be a "citizen", but Chief Justice Waite explicitly states that it "DOES NOT SAY" who shall be a "natural born citizen." Ergo, one is not the same as the other.