Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid
If the 14th Amendment = NBC --> If the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment = NBC
The current interpretation is NOT what the framers of the 14th intended.
Original intent of the 14th would mean that Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy would NOT even be conferred citizenship because his attachment to our country is not complete (i.e. his foreign parents passed their foreign citizenship to him).
Thanks to Las Vegas Ron. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2842720/posts?page=80#80
Link to the full page of where this is excerpted from.
naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf
http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/oct-1-1811.pdf
And I found the original article by rxsid. Here is the link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2826136/posts
The jealousy which is entertained by this government of the commerce carried on by our countrymen between the ports of this republic and those of England has latterly shewn itself in a more impleasant form than heretofore and I am fearful it will not yet produce some more disagreeable effect. A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle. More latterly I was requested by the commissary of foreign affairs to prohibit our consuls from granting passports, which was immediately done. I was afterwards requested by him to furnish a list of the Americans actually in Paris, and to render a like list every decade of those who should in the interim arrive, and which was promised and will be punctually executed. I herewith send you a copy of my instructions to the Consuls and correspondence with the commissary on this subject.
http://projects.umwhistory.org/jmp/archive/files/july-4,-1795_e803227609.pdf
Joel Barlow Esq. Department of State Paris Nov. 27, 1811Sir
I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.
I have James Monroe
A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania
Samuel Roberts (1817)
Page 26 The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; 12. but remain in the condition of their parents; however, the naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children, who are in their minority and dwelling within the United States.
12. In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature. “It is presumed,” says Vattel, “that every citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of their becoming members. The country of the fathers is that of the children; and they become true citizens by their tacit consent."—“ 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 stranger, it will be the place of his birth, and not his country.” “ By the laws of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter in to all their rights; 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.” Law of Nations, B. 1. c. XIX…
http://archive.org/details/digestofselectbr00robe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001114/posts?page=49#49
http://books.google.com/books?id=SF1HAAAAYAAJ&q=william+lewis#v=onepage&q=natural%20born&f=false
TO JOHN ARMSTRONG.
Department of State, February 8th, 1808.
Sir,Your letters and communications by Dr. Bullus were duly delivered on the NA day of NA. The same conveyance brought a copy of the sentence pronounced by the French prize Court in the case of the Horizon, giving a judicial effect to the Decree of Nov. 21, 1806, as expounded in the answer of Mr. Champagny to your letter of the NA.
...
-James Madison
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO WILLIAM PINKNEY.d. of s. mss. instr.
Department of State, March 8th, 1808.
Sir, Having just learnt that the present Mail will arrive at New York in time for the British packet, I avail myself of the opportunity of forwarding your Commission and letters of credence, as successor to Mr. Monroe, in the Legation at London.Since my last which went by Mr. Nourse in a dispatch vessel bound first to L’Orient and then to Falmouth, I have received your communications of the 23d Nov. and NA of Decr. These with a representation from Genl. Armstrong to the French Government on the subject of the Decree of Berlin as expounded and enforced in the case of the ship Horizon, were thought by the President to throw so much light on the course likely to be pursued by Great Britain and France in relation to the United States, that he had the documents confidentially laid before Congress.
-James Madison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO WILLIAM PINKNEY.d. of s. mss. instr.
Department of State, April 4th, 1808.
Sir,My last letter was of March 22d and went under the care of Mr. Rose. I now forward printed copies of the correspondence with him on the subject of his Mission, and of the antecedent documents relating to the case of the Chesapeake. As soon as the voluminous residue of the communications made to Congress issues from the press, it shall also be forwarded. You will find that they include certain documents relating to France which were thought proper for the knowledge of Congress at the present Crisis.
To these communications I add copies of Mr. Erskine’s letter to me on the subject of the British decrees of Novr. last, and of my answer. And that you may have a view of the ground which has been taken with respect to the French decree of Novr. 1806, and to the judicial exposition in the case of the Horizon giving it an illegal operation against the United States, I inclose copies of two letters to Genl. Armstrong on those subjects.
-James Madison
---------------------------------------------------------------
And of course, other people were talking about the "Horizon."
Rufus King letter to Timothy Pickering
Jamaica, L. I., Dec. 1, 1808.
Dear Sir :I should have returned a more seasonable answer to your letter of the 19th past, had I not from day to day expected to remove to town - where only I can make the Examination that may enable me to answer your enquiry ; we are still detained in the Country ; but propose to remove to town, if the weather be favourable, in the early part of next week.
Mr. Madison to avoid the charge of acquiescence, has contended that the Berlin Decree did not infringe our Neutral Rights in any case antecedent to the case of the Horizon. What are we to understand by Neutral Rights? Undoubtedly the Rights that a nation at peace may claim to enjoy when other nations are at war - Belligerent and neutral are therefore correlatives. By the Convention with France it is agreed, when France is at war, and the U. S. at peace, that the American Flag shall cover and protect enemy goods, that the presence of a national ship of the U. S. shall free her convoy from visit and search, that Amer. ships may pass and repass between the Ports of France and those of her Enemy &c. &c.
...
Always & faithfully yr.,
R. K.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Pickering letter to Rufus King
Washington, Feby. 26, 1808.
Dear Sir :....
I presume you will see published the President's Message on this occasion ; and I believe (but I will ascertain this to-morrow) it purports to have communicated Armstrong's letters us well as Pinkney's ; but the fact is, that we again did not receive one line of Armstrong's letters to his own government ; but only his letter to Champagny (I think dated Nov. 12) controverting the arguments of the Tribunal of Prizes for condemning the Ship Horizon's cargo so far as it consisted of goods from England or her Colonies. The decree in this case of the prize court was very long & has been published months ago in all our news-papers. The ship had been wrecked near Morlaix. This document from Paris was a tub to the whale. I am pretty sure that Pinkney said he had known of no instance in which the Berlin decree had been executed against our vessels. Yet, if I mistake not, the case in which the letter of Regnier was written, occurred in September.
The other letters from Pinkney to Madison bore dates of Dec. 14 & 29th, and Jany. 2., the latter inclosing (but without one remark) the Milan decree of Dec. 17. The other two letters were short - I do not remember their contents.
...
Yours truly, T. Pickering.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins
In looking through his writings I stumbled across this comment from him.(James Wilson Lectures on Law, 1790-1791)
“Generally speaking,” says the great political authority,b Aristotle,* “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristick right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.c In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.
I looked up the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776. (Replaced in 1790) It says:
SECT. 5. The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct, preserving always to the people the right of choosing their colonels and all commissioned officers under that rank, in such manner and as often as by the said laws shall be directed.SECT. 6. Every freemen of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided in this state for the space of one whole year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector: Provided always, that sons of freeholders of the age of twenty one years shall be intitled to vote although they have not paid taxes.
And Guess who happened to be President of the Pennsylvania Constitutional convention of 1776? It was Benjamin Franklin.
Franklin, who was good friends with Charles W.F. Dumas and Used his version of Vattel's "Droit des Gens" as a secret code book with which to communicate with our agents in Europe.
So Apparently Pennsylvanians James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin recognized citizenship by descent, so how did RAWLE get it so wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Aristotle defined a citizen to be one who's parents are citizens. (Book III section II)
But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices....
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
So Apparently Pennsylvanian legal authorities James Wilson, Thomas Smith and Benjamin Franklin recognized citizenship by descent, so how did RAWLE get it so wrong?
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
PHILADELPHIA, TUESDAY, November 20, 1787, P. M.
For the city of Philadelphia, George Latimer, Benjamin Rush, Hilary Baker, James Wilson, Thos. M'Kean.
For Lancaster county. Stephen Chambers, Robert Coleman, Sebastian Graff, John Hubley, Jasper Yeates, John Whitehill.
TUESDAY, December 4, 1787, A. M.
— Mr. WILSON....
A good deal has already been said concerning a bill of rights. I have stated, according to the best of my recollection, all that passed in Convention relating to that business. Since that time, I have spoken with a gentleman, who has not only his memory, but full notes that he had taken in that body, and he assures me that, upon this subject, no direct motion was ever made at all; and certainly, before we heard this so violently supported out of doors, some pains ought to have been taken to have tried its fate within; but the truth is, a bill of rights would, as I have mentioned already, have been not only unnecessary, but improper. In some governments, it may come within the gentleman's idea, when he says it can do no harm; but even in these governments, you find bills of rights do not uniformly obtain; and do those states complain who have them not? Is it a maxim in forming governments, that not only all the powers which are given, but also that all those which are reserved, should be enumerated? I apprehend that the powers given and reserved form the whole rights of the people, as men and as citizens. I consider that there are very few who understand the whole of these rights. All the political writers, from Grotius and Puffendorf down to Vattel, have treated on this subject; but in no one of those books, nor in the aggregate of them all, can you find a complete enumeration of rights appertaining to the people as men and as citizens.
Page 61
In that same meeting, Livingston further accused Skipwith of aiding a known privateer, Thomas Melville Jr., a native of Boston, Massachusetts. The Minister claimed that the consul knowingly gave Melville an imporoper certificate, giving the privateer freedom to act with the full protection of the United States Government. Skipwith believed Melville to be innocent of the charge, but...
Everything about the overall tone and structure of the letter clearly showed that Livingston fully believed Skipwith to be guilty of the charges leveled against him. In the letter, Livingston asked, "Where you chief of the Bureau of Commissions during the year five? Do you know Captain Haley? Had he a Commission and a Letter of Marque? Who handed it in? Who introduced him to you? Who recommended him? To whom was the Commission delivered when made out? "
Livingston believed that Skipwith had full knowledge of Melville's notorious reputation as a privateer and still gave him certification to sail under the protection of the United States of America.
However, with his next correspondent, Captain Haley himself, Skipwith was amply served. In his sworn testimony, Haley accused "a band of ruffians" with stirring up the controversy to bismirch Consul Skipwith's reputation, and he further added that those ruffians were in fact "English agents." 38
The consular dispatch concluded with the sworn certificate that Skipwith had then presented to Melville which gave him protection as a citizen of the United States of America. In truth, these types of certificates were merely routine responsibilites of American consular officials. In times of war, particularly with the uncertain nature of the conflict developing between France and Great Britain, shippers of all types relied on such protection for their livelihood. The consular certificates were proof that these merchants were citizens of the United States and therefore neutral in the war.
In fact, Skipwith owed his position of consul to Monroe who had appointed him provisionally to the office when Monroe represented the United States as Minister at Paris. Consequently, from their close working relationship, Monroe esteemed Skipwith "a citizen of excellent understanding, perfect integrity, and great worth."
Unfortunately no copies of letters from the United States Secretary of State to the consular representatives from June 17,1811 to January 2, 1816 are available. The Letters from that time period seem to have disappeared.
David Bailie Warden
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country." - James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, 1833
Chief Justice John Marshall (who at that time had been Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court for more than 30 years, beginning in 1801, just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified) read Bayard's book and corrected him on one point: Congress, he said, didn't have to ask the States for permission to build post roads and military roads. They already had it.
Chief Justice Marshall added, "With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just."
So according to Chief Justice John Marshall, all that is required for a person to be a "natural born citizen" is that he be a "citizen by birth."
Marshall joins the 40% of the Signers of the Constitution who said the same thing when the First Congress passed a law stating that children born abroad to US citizens were to be considered as natural born citizens (and were therefore eligible to the Presidency) in this opinion.
He joins William Rawle, who is a more authoritative figure than I even realized, more authoritative than I have even published to date, and who said in no uncertain terms that "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."
He joins Alexander Hamilton, who told us that when we wanted to understand the meaning of terms in the Constitution, we should look to the English common law for their definitions.
He joins Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who told us that nothing was "better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."
He joins St. George Tucker, James Madison, and so, so many more, in agreeing on what it takes to be eligible to be President. It requires that one be a citizen at or by birth.
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.
