Replies

Ok.

Here’s the deal.

First, in the interest of full disclosure I was taught that NBC means born on the soil of citizen parents.

But that was back in the late 60’s, early 70’s.

While I cannot believe now that any of my high school teachers were omniscient or even had doctorates in history, it seems to me that it would have been maybe a bit unorthodox for them to teach something that was against the established view at that time.

As far as the arguments raised.

One can look at the whole set of things raised and say “Well, it’s the Obama supporters versus those anti Obama”. I admit to being anti-Obama, but because of his policies, not because of where the hell he was born.

In fact, if it came to ejecting him because of some determination that he was Constitutionally ineligible, that might be a cataclysm, whole cities might burn to the ground.

In my view it might be even worse if we ignore the Constitutional mandates and pretend like everything is fine.

But it’s not. And here’s why.

We hear over and over this rhetoric that almost amounts to pleas for us to accept that some Supreme Court case at some time is the controlling factor. And it relies on the Supreme Court saying something about the common law.

My first question would be “How can Supreme Court decisions that happened well after the Constitution was written be deemed a controlling factor in what they actually meant when it was written?”

Answer:
They can’t. The founders were not depending on something that happened many years later.

Not to mention the fact that NONE of the decisions were actually faced with the question at hand, which is “What constitutes a natural born citizen?”

We KNOW the founders had access to Vattel.
We KNOW there was a Convention that argued the new Constitution.

What happened?
At one point, an early draft of the Constitution was put together, with alot of Hamilton’s input. In it he said that the president (I believe at that time Hamilton was arguing for a Governor, not a president, even though it would have been a name difference only) should be a “born citizen”.

Washington was president of the convention. He soon got a letter from John Jay suggesting that qualifications for the head of the new republic should be more stringent, being a NATURAL born citizen.

NATURAL being and adjective, being a descriptor, which fits in perfectly with what Vattel said. Because what Vattel said was a perfect union of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguines (sp?).

So the history of the convention shows us how the idea evolved, from being just a “born citizen”, to being a “natural born citizen”, with NO RELIANCE WHATSOEVER on any idea of “natural born subject” in the British realm.

Geirge Mason, delegate from Virginia, even stated at one point during the convention that “The common law of England is not the common law of these States”. He was a judge in his county, so he probably knew what he was talking about.

How many times have we heard about the founders believing in NATURAL LAW?

Le droit des gens, ou les principe de loi naturelle
The rights of men, or the principles of natural law.

BTW, there is no doubt there is scrubbing going on in the net, I’ve had to make numerous alternate searches for some items because the originals have been deleted. Isn’t that like what nazis do?