Posted on 01/12/2024 11:30:39 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Jan. 12, 2024) — Following up on the presidential eligibility posts recently appearing at The P&E here and here, the New York Post – founded, BTW, by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 – has come out and slammed President Trump’s suggestion that Nikki Haley is likely ineligible to the presidency. The Post labels President Trump’s suggestion that Haley is not a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under the Constitution as being “bonkers.”
Really? Where to start, where to start?
First, President Trump’s post questioned Nikki Haley’s eligibility primarily in terms of her pursuit of the presidency, but it also addressed her likely disqualification for the vice-presidency under the 12th Amendment. Problematically, the Post article misinforms its readers when it asserts that “[t]he 12th Amendment lays out the procedure for electing the president and vice president and makes no mention of eligibility.” (Emphasis added) Alterian, Inc.
Even the most cursory review of the actual language of the 12th Amendment reveals that its final sentence states: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” (Emphasis added) Like the caveman said in the Geico commercial from the 1980’s, “Yeah, next time, maybe do a little more research.”
Second, the author of the NY Post article, one Emily Crane, although a journalist for some 15 years with a B.A. degree in “Communications Studies” from Western Sydney University (yes, Virginia, in Australia…, not the United States), does not claim to be a U.S. Constitution scholar. Instead, she relies for her assertions on, among others, one Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago professor who, she claims, is an expert on constitutional law.
Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I take it that in your opinion the Founding Fathers should have been required to provide explicit definitions of: “We the People, more Perfect Union, provide common defense, establish justice, domestic tranquility,... United States of America, etc.”
and that in absence of such explicit definitions everything in the so-called Constitution is open to interpretation.
The fact the founders changed it from the far more common and understood term "subject" to the far less common "citizen" show their intent that our system was modeled after the Swiss Republic, where the word had always been used in that manner since the 14th century.
The Swiss Republic did not exist in 1787.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history_of_Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_as_a_federal_state
Formation of the Federal State (1848)Following a 27-day civil war in Switzerland, the Sonderbundskrieg, the Swiss Federal Constitution was passed on 12 September 1848. The constitution was heavily influenced by the US Constitution and the ideas of the French Revolution. The constitution establishes the Swiss Confederation, governed by a comparatively strong federal government, instead the model of a confederation of independent cantons bound by treaties.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established. In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide." 6 U. S. 2 Cranch 64, 6 U. S. 119.
In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."
Congressional Globe, House, June 13, 1866, 39 Cong, 1st sess, pg 3148:
Representatives DEFREES and WRIGHT asked permission to print some remarks upon the question of agreeing to the 14A proposal. Without objection, their requests were granted. The entire proposal was then read, and the vote recorded, yeas 120, nays 32, not voting 32. Bingham voted Aye.
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
Thaddeus Stevens addressed each each section of the joint resolution. His comments on the first section as proposed by the Senate are below. Nobody else rose to comment on any section of the joint resolution.
A few words will suffice to explain the changes made by the Senate in the proposition which we sent them.The, first section is altered by defining who are citizens of the United States and of the States. This is an excellent amendment, long needed to settle conflicting decisions between the several States and the United States. It declares this great privilege to belong to every person born or naturalized in the United States.
That is all the words said in House debate about the citizenship clause, by anybody. The recorded vote is on the next page near the top of the first column, immediately following the reading of the full 14A, which continued over to page 3149.
Page 3148: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=269
Congressional Globe at the Library of Congress
Page 3149: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=270
Senate Debate on Civil Rights Act of 1866 authored by Sen. Trumbull
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=603
Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?Mr. COWAN. I think not.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
Regardless of what anyone may have said, or be misinterpreted as saying, or just wrongly imagined to have said, the 14th Amendment established a constitutional standard of citizenship which overruled or struck down anything which can be misinterpreted or imagined to have been contrary to the 14th Amendment.
In the Senate, Sen. Jacob Howard offered an amendment to the Bingham bill to include a citizenship clause of Sen. Howard's drafting. Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, page 2890, column 2, near the bottom.
The words proposed by Sen. Jacob Howard were incorporated into the Constitution via Section I of the 14th Amendment in 1868 — "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Democrat presidential candidate Mike Dukakis was the son of Greek immigrant parents, who were naturalized citizens by the time he was born here in the U.S. Please do not say that "immigrant parents" disqualifies a presidential candidate. There were plenty of reasons to not vote for Dukakis either, but he was a definite natural born citizen under Article II.
Those situation are totally similar: an ‘official’ taking it upon themself to determine what is the Constitution of the UnitedStates.
You cannot pass a statute to change the laws of nature.
That's for sure! They think they can pass laws declaring a man is a woman!
There are people out there proclaiming that Constitutional originalism is dangerous and evil.
You keep manipulating and conflating terms and language. A nation can determine who are its "Citizens". But per Natural Law and the Laws of Nature it cannot determine who is a "natural born Citizen" of the country.
Wong Kim Ark, 149 U. S. 649, 716 (1898)
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Being the sovereigns, the People of the United States can determine who are the citizens of the United States, and with the 14th Amendment they did so for all persons born in the United States.
Regardless of what anyone may have said, or be misinterpreted as saying, or just wrongly imagined to have said, the 14th Amendment established a constitutional standard of citizenship which overruled or struck down anything which can be misinterpreted or imagined to have been contrary to the 14th Amendment.
In the Senate, Sen. Jacob Howard offered an amendment to the Bingham bill to include a citizenship clause of Sen. Howard's drafting. Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, page 2890, column 2, near the bottom.
The words proposed by Sen. Jacob Howard were incorporated into the Constitution via Section I of the 14th Amendment in 1868 — "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Also, i've posted that lawbook from Pennsylvania which flat out says our "citizenship" comes from Vattel, and the people most likely to know what was intended by the Convention (held in Philadelphia in 1787) was the Philadelphia legal community, which is exactly where that book came from.
What a grand saga this was where you tried to pass off a page from a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas as coming from a "book" by four Judges of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The publication by the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is available from Google here.
The "book" is a 38-page report consisting of a list of English statutes. Each cited statute contains a very brief description of what it is about.
The page of text you misattributed to the "book" by the Judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was by a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania who had nothing to do with the convention. Judge Roberts, who nobody ever heard of, is the one who wrote something stupid. You are the one who tried to sheep dip the page from Judge Roberts with the title page of the report by the four judges from the state spreme court.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=159#159159 posted on 07/25/2023 3:40:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
- - - - -
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=168#168
168 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:55:28 AM by Penelope Dreadful
- - - - -
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=169#169
169 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:17:26 PM by woodpusher
The words proposed by Sen. Jacob Howard were incorporated into the Constitution via Section I of the 14th Amendment in 1868 — "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Also, i've posted that lawbook from Pennsylvania which flat out says our "citizenship" comes from Vattel, and the people most likely to know what was intended by the Convention (held in Philadelphia in 1787) was the Philadelphia legal community, which is exactly where that book came from.
Pennsylvania, Act of 1777
An Act to revive and put in force such and so much of the late laws of the province on Pennsylvania, as is judged necessary to be in force in this commonwealth, and to revive and establish the Courts of Justice, and for other purposes therein mentioned.II.
Be it therefore enacted, and it is hereby enacted,
That each and every one of the laws or acts of General Assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said be province on the fourteenth day of May last, shall be in force from and binding on the inhabitants of this state from and after the tenth day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this General Assembly; and all and every person and persons whomsoever are hereby enjoined and required to yield obedience to the said laws, as the case may require until the said laws or acts of General Assembly respectively shall be repealed or altered, or until they expire by their own limitation; and the common law and such of the statute laws of England as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as is hereafter excepted.
Citing 1866 judge’s declaration of the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is exactly akin to giving credence to a state election official’s decision of Trump insurrection and removal from the ballot.
So, citing an opinion of Mr. Justice Swayne of the United States Supreme Court is akin to giving credence to a state election official.
Perhaps you would find the opinion of the Rhodes court by Mr. Justice Swayne of the U.S. Supreme Court even more authoritative if you realized it was cited and quoted by the Wong Kim Ark court, that long standing precedential case on United States citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
Again, what’s the end game?
What specific legislation or other action have you written your Congressman or supported legal action about?
Have you sent the chart to your Cingressman?
ok you admit NOT originalist
-fJRoberts-
While I can see the point and agree with the Tribe/Scalia view that we must adjudicate according to the actual texts, I vehemently disagree that those texts can be at all separated from their original meanings.
You have here changed your word usage from original intent. It is not clear if that is meant as a substantive change or not.
With Act of May 24, 1934; 48 Stat. 797, Congress had a brain fart and enacted a law conferring citizenship on those born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States...." Quite apparently, their intent was to cover all those not covered by 14A.
By Act of August 4, 1937, 50 Stat. 558, "Relating to the citizenship of certain classes of persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama," Congress performed a cleanup of its brainfart.
The meaning of "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States is very clear. The words were enacted, not the intent of the logic-challenged Congressmen. It said what it said, not what they meant to say, presumably: out of the limits or jurisdiction of the United States.
The Hay-Bunai treaty of 1903 empowered the United States to exercise jurisdiction within the Canal Zone "as if" it were the sovereign. The United States was not the sovereign. The Zone was outside the territory but within the jurisdiction of the United States; leaving birth citizenship neither covered by 14A nor the applicable statute.
The intent and the meaning may wildly differ. We do not rely on intent when the meaning of the words is clear, even if the words frustrate the intent. The meaning of the words does not change because Congress realizes it screwed up. They have to correct their screwup.
There was a major problem with a prior law, and the fix resulted in this:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.SEC. 2. Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
Approved, August 4, 1937.
Does retroactive conferral of citizenship make one a natural born citizen?
ok you admit NOT originalist
Original what? The terms original intent and original meaning have both been used.
Original intent of the drafter has no relevance in constitutional construction. Even if the intent of the majority of the Framers could be ascertained, their words were ratified by the people, not their intent.
Assume hypothetically Congress proposes an Amendment limiting immigration to four thousand immigrants per year. The people ratify. Then Congress claims (or proves beyond a doubt) that their intent was four million a year. Does that change what the people ratified to four million a year?
The intent of the 14A citizenship clause was debated at some length in the Senate.
"All persons" has a clear meaning and excludes nobody. "Born in the United States" has a clear meaning. "Subject to the jurisdiction" has a clear meaning, subject to our laws. Holding aliens are not subject to our laws would mean they could be prosecuted for any crime whatever.
I have never before encountered the term original meaning. It seems to infer the Living Constitution where the meaning of the Constitution morphs with the times. I disagree with a morphing Constitution if that is what the term refers to. The meaning of the Constitution continues with the meaning given to it by the ratifiers. Following generations can amend a provision, but a social change does not effect an amendment. I do not favor "amending" the Constitution by finding penumbras formed by emanations coming from guarantees.
If you don’t believe the woman has even the slightest chance of being the candidate, why are you running preposterous articles about her? This nbC sh*T comes under the more preposterous, ridiculous wing of FR. Like Mike Obama running.
Ignoring the BS, my friend, instead of promoting it, now that would be logic...don’t you think? Your rock is lonely.
Since you asked, yes I have and to many others and much more. See: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org ... and ... http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/archives.htm ... and ... http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
What have you done besides posting here? Show me examples.
Tell my WHY the “natural born Citizen” term was put into the Presidential Eligibility Clause of our U.S. Constitution for a future president and commanders in chief, once their generation was gone. If you don’t know, read this: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
In regards to this issue, why would it matter what I have done? YOU are the one making the case for the position you believe is correct.
You’ve shown your true colors. All talk and no walk, it seems.
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.