|
> Sorry the interpretation is wrong!!! If that was the case, then why aren’t Americans still > considered British? They aren't anymore, as of Treaty of Paris (1783) ... unless of course they were born that way.
|
Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:
Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.
If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.
Excuse me - SCOTUS DOES NOT take positions on questions that HAVE NOT come before the Court. They HAVE NEVER declared jus soli the requirement to be natural-born.
Now, in Ark, had Ark been running for President and was denied being on the ballot - SCOTUS WOULD have had to rule whether he was natural-born ...
From the letters of James Madison in his own words:
” Much information [he said] might be obtained by the experience of others, if, in despite of it we were not determined to be guided only by a visionary theory. The ancient republics of Greece and Rome [said he, see with what jealousy they guarded the rights of citizenship against adulteration by foreign mixture. The Swiss nation [lie said, in modern times, had not been less jealous on the name subject. Indeed, no example could be found, in the history of man, to authorize the experiment which had been made by the United States. It seemed to have been adopted by universal practice as a maxim, that the republican character was in no way to be formed “not by early education. In some instances, to form this character, those propensities which are generally considered as almost irresistible, were appeased and subdued. And shall we [he asked] alone adopt the rash theory, that the subjects of all governments, despotic, monarchical, and aristocratical, are, as soon as they set foot on American ground, qualified to participate in administering the sovereignty of our country? Shall we hold the benefits of American citizenship so cheap as to invite, nay, to almost bribe, the discontented, the ambitious, and the avaricious of every country, to accept them ?”
” Every species of government has its specific principle. Ours are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchy—yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the government they imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, and distracted mass.”
As you can see, the founders/framers were very deeply concerned with children of aliens being educated in foreign practices and rightfully so. They were against all laws of a monarchy & that included the feudal definition of natural born subject being imposed on a person. this was NOT the practice of a free society where citizenship was derived through heredity or consent. You can not inherit what is not there. England pretty much quit using their original constitution when they adopted feudal law, which defined the feudal definition of 'natural born subject'. This definition was not that of the freeman/English Saxon's that formed the country of England. I suggest you might want to spend some time on the history of merry ole England, because the framers & founders were quite learned in the mother country's rich history where the men were once free & sovereign, not subject to an all powerful sovereign king or queen. But you'll have to go back before the Norman conquest when the Constitution was 1st drafted to really understand what the founders meant when they said they looked to the ancient ages when the laws of nature which are the laws of God that defined who a citizen was. It didn't start with Vattel, Vattel merely further expounded on what the greats of Aristotle, Cicero, Puffendorf, Grotius and all the others who wrote of the laws of nature. If you read Aristotle, you would see that his words are Vattel's words. If you read Grotius, the same as well as all the others.
If this definition applied to all children born of aliens, there was no need for the 14th amendment.
Read it again. You’re overlooking something. Plus, dictionaries are NOT law. Neither are treatises.
parsy
If you have a point to make just say it.
Seems as time goes by..the meaning.and intent of the Founders slowly fades away into the abyss.
Jefferson was concerned this would happen and it seems it has...”immigrants will bring the principles of government they leave..they will infuse into our legislation..their spirit, warp and bias its direction..and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass..”
Yes, but unless the father is also a citizen, not a natural born one.
“Natives who are not citizens are, first, the children of ambassadors, or other foreign ministers, who, although born here, are subjects or citizens of the government of their respective fathers.
Secondly, Indians, in general, are not citizens. Thirdly, negroes, or descendants of the African race, in general, have no power to vote, and are not eligible to office. “
OK. You overlooked the “negroes, or descendants of the african race” part.
parsy
No, I didn’t overlook that part. Sorry.
Why would she? He was a nonentity in 2000, the last time her Thighness had access to those FBI files. He was not even yet a freshman US Senator. He was an Illinois state senator, known for how frequently he voted "present".
Vattel’s Law of Nations is not Law, but the Founders and Judges referenced it.
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“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.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.”
State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835).
I’m not pretending everyone agreed with the quotes above. There are quotes on both sides available from before and after the Constitution was written. I suspect both sides assumed their definition was meant, and that the ‘original intent’ is therefor divided.
In any case, I see no reason to believe that the Supreme Court, over 100 years after WKA, will suddenly rule that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. If it were to attempt removal of Obama by that slender reed, it would be overturned by Congress - with bipartisan support.
Sorry the interpretation is wrong!!! If that was the case, then why aren’t Americans still considered British? They fought a freaking war to break the chains of Britian. Why then are only those born before the signing of the Constitution exempt from the citizen clause?
Also, the Supreme Court is far from right on many issues. But here is a question for you........No where in the Constitution does it say that there should be a Separation of Church and State. That was taken from a letter from Benjamin Franklin.....They can decide law on one letter yet they ignore MANY letter referring to Natural Born Citizen!
If ‘dicta’ was irrelevant, they wouldn’t write it. It isn’t binding, but it explains their reasoning and is often used to guide future questions - as has the dicta of WKA.
Do you have any real proof that they referenced Vattel for the citizenship part? People have committed the “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc”: logical fallacy in this regard. That because someone knew of the book, they obviously meant to include an alleged definition from that book in the U.S. Constitution.
Read Vattel, and I am sure you will find many of Vattel’s ideas did not transfer. For example, if the Founding Fathers thought so highly of Vattel, why don’t we have a monarchy in this country as is found in the second sentence of Vattel’s book to be the best form of government?
Another problem that you get into, is that if merely knowing of Vattel’s book is enough, well then the Founders also knew of Blackstone’s book. What puts Vattel’s alleged meaning in and NOT those contained in Blackstone?
Finally, the Wong Court considered both Vattel and English common law, and chose English common law, leaving Vattel to the dissent. The Ankeny court in November 2009 did the same.
You are battling uphill against at least 400 years of law.
parsy
WKA didn’t choose English common law as they only recognized the plaintiff as a citizen of the United States (you know, the other Constitutionally recognized class of citizen).
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The modern usage however has native born merely born in the country, but "natural born" retains it's original meaning, except for after-birthers, who thinks it's meaning morphed along with that of "native". And that might be true for casual purposes, but for Constitutional purposes, it retains it's 1787 meaning.
Also, Vattel didn’t include the translation “natural born citizen” until AFTER the Constitution was written. The word he used in French was simply repeated in early English translations, and has since entered our language as ‘indigenous’.
If the Founders were relying on Vattel, they would have said the President must be an indigenous native...
|
> Sorry the interpretation is wrong!!! If that was the case, then why aren’t Americans still > considered British? They aren't anymore, as of Treaty of Paris (1783) ... unless of course they were born that way.
|
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.
