Replies

"I am quoting a primary source on English law in the middle of the eighteenth century. The law that all 55 men at the Philadelphia Convention were familiar with. The law they grew up with, the law they knew when they were proud to call themselves Englishmen, before July 4, 1776."

Interestingly, the framers and founders were just as familiar with Vattel. As a matter of fact, they openly read his work during the Constitution Convention itself.

"If the Constitutional Convention had wanted to require the President to be born in the United States of two American citizens they would have said so in so many words."

There are copious items in the Constitution that are not explicitly defined. There's no indication they intended it to be a literal dictionary.
Furthermore, there was no need to define it in the Constitution for the reason I stated above. Folks during that time new Vattel's work and therefore were familiar with his definition. Clearly, Vattel defines "Natural Born Citizen" and Blackstone defines "Natural Born Subject." Which appears in the Constitution?

And....

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was ejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/the-dangerous-precedent-set-by-obama-being-president/

new = knew

Rxsid, I can just keep quiet. I was thinking of responding to the common law quotation when I saw your response. You not only saved me the trouble, but expressed it better. I only hope there are more here who understand, but who choose not to engage.

I don't think many of these citations are malicious. But I don't think many have thought of the significance of not selecting a trustworthy commander in chief.

I too was struck be the connection Donofrio discovered between the date, June 18, 1787, of the Hamilton draft, and the July 25 letter from John Jay to Washington changing the draft's requirements for commander in chief from Citizen of the United States into not any but a natural born citizen.

I don't see how a justice could come to any other conclusion. There is no evidence for another interpretation, only perceived political advantage.

An additional argument against using Blackstone’s interpretation instead of Vattel can be found in George Mason’s statement at the Convention - “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” As is pointed out at http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html, the common law definition was used by Great Britain as the justification for impressing American seamen into the British navy. We went to war in 1812 because we didn’t agree with this interpretation!