The "wack jobs" are the after-birthers foaming at the mouth ranting and spitting spews when news comes out they are so wrong.
Hey, have a pilsner - you'll feel better.
Posted on 04/02/2010 2:13:33 PM PDT by rxsid
"Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have know how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. He giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. Given this time-honored definition, which has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and some lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
..."
Continued: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html
By that strain of Birther "logic," Obama's kids are Brits, not American Citizens, and the progeny of his (theoretical) sons will be Brits too. And no one is eligible to be President, unless they are descended in an unbroken line of natural born citizen male ancestors back to 1787, when the Constitution was adopted.
And then you folks get all riled up when Obama holds you out as a bunch of raving wack jobs, and smears all of his opponents by equating them to you."
---------------------------------------------
You do know, of course, that the natural allegiance that is due perpetually, is for the INDIVIDUAL. The paragraph that comes from (& the one before it) clearly are in reference to the individual and their allegiance owed the crown. Horribly bad attempt at obfuscation.
Was his status widely known? Chester Arthur’s wasn’t...until 2008.
" The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours. If you are a U.S. citizen now, and you never were naturalized as a U.S. citizen, then you are a natural born citizen.?
That would depend on bammies citizenship status now wouldn't it?
Learn some basics before you continue to make a fool out of your self.
Fraud protected by government officials is still fraud.
To delight in the successful perpetration of fraud is not something to be proud of.
I wonder if the unions pay overtime on Good Friday's?
Funny, last time I checked a man with a foreign father was currently the president while everyone who tells me I'm wrong has seen the folks arguing their case get laughed out of courtroom after courtroom.
So it looks like my definition of NBC is having a pretty good track record while the fictional "2 citizen parent" definition appears to be a big loser.
Anyways, don't blame me. I didn't write the law.
I'm tired of debating the issue. You're not going to convince me I'm wrong when all I need to do is google "44th President of the United States" to see that's just not the case. And while I am at, I can go ahead and google Ankeny v. Daniels, Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and, oh, about 60-something more birther courtroom defeats.
Wilson's mother would have become a citizen upon marrying his father, assuming she was not naturalized by derivation when her parents were naturalized.
Arthur's father was naturalized, but not at the time of Chester's birth. Rather when Chester was 14.
Chester's father's naturalization certificate was recently found. It shows him being naturalized when Arthur was about 14 years old. Arthur was not eligible.
I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify..
Even if a mere statute could do that, which it can not, it would not help The One. Because making it retroactive would be an ex post facto law, which the Constitution forbids Congress to pass. (Article I section 9, 3rd paragraph)
Chester's father's naturalization certificate was recently found. It shows him being naturalized when Arthur was about 14 years old. Arthur was not eligible.
I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify..
Even if a mere statute could do that, which it can not, it would not help The One. Because making it retroactive would be an ex post facto law, which the Constitution forbids Congress to pass. (Article I section 9, 3rd paragraph)
I figure that post would bring at least one of you guys around. LoL!
The judiciary will have to lie to themselves and to the nation by contorting the intent and meaning to find Obama as a natural born citizen . You better hope this doesn't get to the courts on the merits.”
I'll be honest with you. This specific issue has been addressed by one court already. I don't expect the Supreme Court to ever take it up because they would consider it a settled matter that doesn't require their attention. But if they do, I think the decision leaves Obama an NBC without so much as blinking an eye.
No one is sweating this because no one outside of these circles lends it any credence. Apuzzo or Orly or whoever is never going to win a single case for this. And we don't say that to apologize or cover for Obama.
Take the latest health care bill. I don't believe it will be overturned. However, I wouldn't rule that out, because certain precedents create a plausible string that some court might pull together to at least overrule parts of it. But this stuff? Honestly, it really does have zero chance of ever going anywhere.
I know you believe it should. I understand that is frustrating, and I apologize if in the past I have come across as mocking your frustration. But in all seriousness, don't make too much of an emotional investment in this.
Yes, very widely known. The affair between his mother, a woman of high society, and her French tutor was a big scandal, which greatly hindered his early social status. I can't find any instance of his rivals, some of the greatest legal minds of the day, using this to claim he wasn't Constitutionally eligible due to his father's status.
An interesting, but moot point because Fremont was neither elected nor sworn in as the US President.....
What this does illustrate is that our system for insuring that a Presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements is flawed. (Is there any system?)
Maybe we need a way to verify eligability before a candidate can be put on the ballot......... just saying.....
The "wack jobs" are the after-birthers foaming at the mouth ranting and spitting spews when news comes out they are so wrong.
Hey, have a pilsner - you'll feel better.
I'll be honest with you tired, the eligibility cases have barely left the judges personal offices and nowhere near being heard in the court room. You wish it was settled. Don't blink too much they may take it up eventually.
Pretty sure the status of the child follows that of the mother for an out of wedlock birth. That is, if the mother is a citizen, and the child is born in the country, then the child is a natural born citizen.
Entomology is the study of insects. I believe you intended etymology.
Many parts will be overruled or at the very least it's going to be repealed when Obutt is gone after 2012...especially the part forcing people to buy medical coverage - honestly.
I agree with you. I think there’s a fighting chance Obamacare will be over-turned on the individual mandate. How do you turn 300 million consumers into commercial enterprises with a straight face?
parsy, who thinks the Constitutional experts can’t see the forest for the trees
I've been similarly "burned". I was impressed with an anti-drunk driving poster I saw while on a trip to SHAPE in Belgium. I didn't have a French dictionary handy, so I grabbed a French/English dictionary at the convenience store next to the cafeteria and tossed it in my backpack. Later that evening, I pulled the dictionary out at my hotel room to attempt a translation. The word I didn't understand was translated as "bloke". Oh crap, the dictionary is UK English, not American English.
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.