I would be so kind Dear Germanicus.
But I will have to refer to the quotes,as I type on. Mini phone that crushes my abilities.
David Ramsay speaks directly to Natural Born Citizen. Not in regards to president, but naturally, this is a direct hit.
We also have John Jay with his description, that can only fit two citizen parents, with the knowledge that his term replaced Born Citizen, on the very day he wrote the note.
Washington then accepted his suggestion, along with everyone else in the room. We call that evidence.
They effectively erased Born citizen
As a requirement, much to your dismay.
So we do have quotes directly attributable to the founders.
On top of that, we have had one single attempt to redefine NBC. But that attempt failed.
Let’s try to understand why it failed
It requires a constitutional amendment to change it.
None has been made.
There is no law on the books, redefining the founders intent.
There is no founder, on record. Other than Ramsay and John Jay, describing NBC. None.
If you have a quote from a founder, with Natural as its description, let us have it.
If I may add, Dear Germanicus.
All the founders in the Hall in Philadelphia agree with me. They all let Natural born citizen replace born citizen on the document.
No amount of parsing and twisting can change what they did that summer. Washingtons mansion across the street may be gone. We may have a Kenyan born citizen running our country. But the term and it’s meaning are forever carved into the document.
We all know that the Founders and Framers were not of one mind on practically any issue. That is why, shortly after ratification, they split into Republicans like Jefferson and Madison versus Federalists like Washington and Hamilton.
Zephaniah Swift was a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, serving as its Speaker in 1792, as well as clerk for four sessions. From 1793 to 1797, he served in the Federal Congress as well as a Pro-Administration representative in his first term and as a Federalist in his second. The Connecticut Judicial Branch in its biography of him says:
“Judge Swift has been praised as one of the greatest early American jurists by Wesley W. Horton in his book, The Connecticut State Constitution. Swift studied at Yale before entering the practice of law, and represented the town of Windham in the General Assembly of Connecticut. He was elected to the U.S. Congress where he served from 1787 to 1793.
Swift wrote the first legal treatise published in America. This work, “A System of the Law of the State of Connecticut,” published in 1795, presents Swift’s observations on government, the constitution of the state, and differences between English and American common law. In 1810, Swift published the first treatise on the law of evidence.
In his legal treatise, Swift wrote: “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…
The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Additionally, James Kent was a man whose reputation in American law is such that William Curtiss, wrote a book in 1900 called “James Kent: The Father of American Jurisprudence,” about him. Also of interest to us conservatives is a book written on him in 2000 called “James Kent: A Study in Conservatism 1763-1847” by John Theodore Horton. Kent’s most remembered work is his “Commentaries on American Law,” written between 1826 and 1830. This was a four volume magnum opus dealing with state, federal, and international law, as well as the law of personal property and rights. In Lecture XIII, which was on the Presidency, from Volume One, Part II, he states the following of the President’s qualifications: 2. Qualifications. — “The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.”
In Lecture XXV from Part IV of Volume II, Kent explains just who qualifies as a native:
1. Of Natives. —Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Finally, William Rawle quickly gained a reputation as an able attorney, eventually serving as chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar from 1822 until his death. As a Federalist he served a term in the Assembly, but found that politics were not to his liking. After his 1791 appointment by George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania, Rawle handled the prosecutions stemming from the whiskey riots in the western part of Pennsylvania. He stepped down from this office in 1799.
In 1829, he wrote “A View of the Constitution.” In this work, he addresses what the term “natural born citizen” means on page 86:
“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…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
I’ll see your Jay and Ramsay and raise you a Swift, a Kent and a Rawle.
-PJ
It strikes me that Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was given as original intent of the establishment clause. Neither Jefferson nor Paine were Framers of the Constitution, yet Jefferson's 1802 letter was used to settle the establishment clause. Therefore, Paine's 1791 book should be used to settle the natural-born clause, too.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
-PJ