Posted on 01/16/2016 12:34:18 AM PST by RC one
The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens†was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,†as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.
As Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declared: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ….†(Italics added) A loophole for themselves, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote 46 years later, was created “out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
OK< we’ll give all the presidents participation trophies.
I'm baaaack! But just for a post or two.
I reject this continuous Vattel quoting and pasting where the sentences and phrases are cherry picked, incomplete or who knows what.
I think I can prove that, but someone else just posted what I know to exist regarding Vattel's real opinion in context... Just for the hell of it, I will post it all together.
THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
OK there! This is the entire commentary, and as you read for yourself, you can plainly see some of the contradictions to your assertion, and frankly he seems to contradict his own assertions more than once.
I contend that Vattel may well have been used for a number of aspects of our constitution.the entire vattel commentary on Natural Born and it not being a place but the fathers status transfers, appears to me to be a logical option according to Vattel.
It's entirely possible that Washington and the committee that rewrote the original draft and added naturalborn, followed by silence on the definition they used, could have easily drawn from other parts of Vattels opinings about natural born, naturalization, and a term he did not use but we do, Birthright citizenship which he calls native.
If these other Vattel assertions were used, it would explain why a diplomat with two foreign born children would have written Washington to request that his heirs who might following his footsteps, would likely father a child while posted to a foreign country and those children would be of second class in their citizenship. That is a lot to give up for a diplomatic posting..
I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make here. Maybe you could narrow it down a bit? I am very familiar with Emer de Vattel’s law of Nations, book 1 chapter XIX. I don’t need to read it all again.
Vattel repeats that there is little relationship to the place born and natural born, and that is can only be inherited from the father.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.
You may want to read through this paper..
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
To sum up,because I must leave in 5 min...
If you read through that Federalist blog post and were to accept what is says particularly regarding the 14th amendment.
My assertions are no different with one exception. I take into account the equal protection clause that came with the right to vote and legally contract the US constitution now guarantees to women.
In my view, that made Ted’s mother a legal grantee or transferee of her status to her son at birth.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Emer de Vattel. Law of Nations, Book 1 chapter 19.
I highlighted what I wanted you to see.
If you look closely at it, you will see that it actually distinguishes between two types of Americans-American citizens that were born in the United States and Americans that weren't born in the United States just like Article II, section I, clause 5.
First 9 words. Read them a few times:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
How many Patriots has Obama embedded inside the Government?
Was he influenced by his Non citizen Father? Read his book Dreams From My Father,look at his record for the past 7 plus years and decide
This is important because they had defined such a person as a natural born citizen in the act of 1790. That they repealed this definition and changed it to citizen tells us that the location of birth was important enough to cause a change in their definition. The result is that whatever they thought a natural born citizen was at the time, it WAS NOT someone born outside of United States jurisdiction.
It was kind of a rhetorical question.
Would you be equally committed to your position if Cruz had been born in Texas and Trump in Scotland?
JV: “The country of the father OR the mother is therefore that of the children”
I actually agree with you that modern changes in how we treat women as citizens since the writing of the Constitution do affect this standing. But for some reason you defy the concept of nature-given birth. Nature determines the offspring by BOTH parents.
Prior to full rights being given to women in this country, their citizenship followed their husband. So there was no distinction between the mother and that father’s citizenship since in the eyes of the law, they were one in the same.
Now that we do distinguish the two (mother and father) as distinct citizens, the only proper reading is that they now are both required to be citizens individually. (previously they were both citizens as well but then they were not distinct).
I like Cruz too, almost as much as Trump. But here is a logistical problem:
Only 1/4 Republicans believe that Cruz is inelibible. So he might win the nomination, especially if this becomes the main issue.
Then phase 2 — Mitch McConnell already threw him under the bus, the democats will point that out, and ‘shazam!’ All the DNC becomes hypocritical birthers. They confuse the low-info voter, and where does that leave us? Arguing AGAINST original intent while they become ‘pious’ constitutionalists.
The issue should be about a border wall, the budget, ISIS, the economy, failed socialism, crony-corruption, BenGahzi.
Do we want the issue to be about how unfair it is that only the father’s citizenship counts in natural born status?
Stinks to high heaven.
McConman’s dagger has blood on it from Cruz’ back.
The problem with this argument is that the Constitution doesn't use the term "native-born citizen", it is "natural born citizen".
the problem is yours. Tucker has clearly indicated that natural born and native born are the same thing.
I don’t think it would be the father OR the mother. It would have to be the father AND the mother. If the purpose of the provision was to guard against divided loyalties, back then, the father was the only parent who could confer citizenship to his progeny, so there was no problem of divided loyalty. If you then open it up to both parents, if it’s “or” you defeat the purpose of avoiding divided loyalty, but if it’s “and”, you maintain it.
The founders pretty clearly weren't denying presidential eligibility based on a person's parents' choice of vacation destination; to say nothing of parents who were abroad in the service of the United States, as McCain's were.
Whether such a child born to ONE citizen parent is eligible is a question that would need to be clarified by legislation. Mark Levin, for one, says that it has been, and such a person is eligible. I tend to think he knows what he's talking about.
You make the fatal flaw by introducing equal protection but not maintaining the purpose of avoiding divided loyalty. If it’s to be father and mother, it’s both/and not either/or.
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.