Posted on 12/28/2011 5:34:17 PM PST by rxsid
"THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.
I was recently forwarded an incredibly amazing article from the October 10, 1811 edition of The Alexandria Herald newspaper. RXSID of Free Republic sent it with a brief note, stating, “Check out this case.” The Herald article is entitled, The Case of James McClure. The author is…PUBLIUS.
Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, for their anonymous authorship of The Federalist Papers. By 1811, Hamilton was dead and Jay retired. My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet. Regardless of authorship, Madison was President at the time the article was written, and it discusses the official position of his administration denying U.S. citizenship based upon simple birth in the country.
The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens. This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth. The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.
This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786. Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody. The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:
There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS. Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution. Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen. That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.
The article goes on to question whether the 1802 act is defective in that PUBLIUS seems to believe citizenship ought to be revoked for naturalized persons who return to their original country and establish domicile there again. But the article makes clear that Madison’s administration steadfastly denied that simple birth in the United States was enough to establish citizenship. This, of course, discredits the conclusions of Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as the infamous New York Chancery opinion of Lynch v. Clark. Both cases contain erroneous assumptions that the British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States.
I tracked down the original article published in the Richmond Enquirer on October 1, 1811, which was then republished in The Alexandria Gazette on October 10, 1811. Both of these newspapers were published in Virginia, Madison’s home state. Furthermore, the PUBLIUS penned article was the grand finale of nearly a year-long argument which went viral in various newspapers of the day starting in January 1811.
I have been up and down the East Coast tracking down the remaining newspaper articles on this as well as other supporting historical information. I have also consulted with professionals and am preparing an extensive section for my forthcoming book which details everything that has been unearthed.
The whole story cannot be understood by way of online searches. The internet is barren on this case. Some of the necessary information isn’t even available in the Library of Congress or National Archives.
Here are the images from the Alexandria Herald and Richmond Enquirer. The Herald scan is much easier to read than the Enquirer scan.
Leo Donofrio, Esq."
Regarding Liberal judge's interpretation of the 14th amendment, the dispute is not regarding the word "born" it is regarding the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Liberal Judges think it has no meaning whatsoever, and normal sane people know that it does.
Again, George Will and Ann Coulter explain the issue quite well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
I don't think your point can be emphasized too much. The founders had to REJECT the British concept of Subject, just to break away and BE an Independent nation.
Again, I am puzzled as to why you wish to bring up Rogers v. Bellei. That cases establishes that a "born citizen" is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen." A more damaging blow to your argument I cannot fathom.
Also I am continuously puzzled by those who keep saying "let us see what SCOTUS said!" as opposed to "Let us read what the FOUNDERS said." The former argument implies that there are those of you who do not know what to think unless a third party tells you what your opinion should be.
Inasmuch as someone in the country without permission is obviously "outta' control" it's fair to presume they are in charge of their own children.
We could probably deport well over 40 million people by invoking that standard hard and fast.
You don't really think the Democrats will allow that without a fight do you?
"Natural born citizen" status CANNOT be modified by statute. Only Naturalized, Statutory, or Derivative citizenship can be modified by statute, non of which constitutes "natural citizenship."
BTW, George and Anne are now in the doghouse when it comes to examining American entrails and history.
Your own sentence makes my point. That they HAD removable "privileges" indicates they are different from "natural citizens" because a "natural citizen's" privileges are not removable.
We could probably deport well over 40 million people by invoking that standard hard and fast.
You don't really think the Democrats will allow that without a fight do you?
I think Democrats are a vile and evil party from the time of their founding by Andrew Jackson, throughout Slavery,The Ku Klux Klan, Eugenics, Jim Crow, Abortion, and debauched sexual practices all the way to the present day. I have no doubt they will support anything which is evil or depraved and do so wrapped in a cloak of righteous indignation. Does not the bible say that Satan comes as an Angel of light?
Yes, the Democrats will fight ANYTHING which threatens their grasp on power.
As I mentioned, before Roosevelt appointed judges utterly destroyed our legal system, Eisenhower was able to deport illegal immigrants by the hundreds of thousands.
I have long thought it was ironic that they can disdain "birtherism" yet argue on it's behalf when they don't realize they are doing so.
In what other regards are George Will and Ann Coulter in the doghouse? I disagree with Ann on her involvement with "Go Proud" and her dismissal without due consideration of the "birther" issue, but what else has she or George done which should merit our opprobrium?
Obviously English isn't your strong suit. I'm not trying to discredit what Publius thought. I'm clarifying that his thought was based on the naturalization law, NOT on place of birth. Repeat after me. Naturalization made McClure a citizen, NOT the place of birth.
It does.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years
If the feminists are accurate in their contention that the use of the generalized masculine pronoun refers only to males rather than being inclusive of both males and females, then the President must be male.
Pro-Romneyism ~ they may simply be “jumping the shark” or they may have had strokes.
You do know the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah is actually the story of a woman looking for husbands for her daughters, and if she doesn't succeed she'll be turned to stone and the girls will hop in the sack with the old man.
It's in there!
Most of the people Eisenhower kicked out had actually come here lawfully to work in agriculture during WWII ~ they did not intend to be “immigrants” either.
Sorry, but I haven't ignored any quotes. Gray makes a distinction between natural-born citizenship and common-law citizenship via the 14th amendment. They aren't the same concepts, so it's not necessary to quote irrelevant concepts.
To paraphrase another poster: Wong Kim Ark doesn't say what you think it does. The proof of that is Rogers v. Bellei, WEEDIN V. CHIN BOW, 274 U. S. 657 (1927)
The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute;
This is partially true, but the court clarifies this statement later in the Weedin v. Chin Bow decision here:
The majority in that case, as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the government, and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless, under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the amendment.
See??? The common-law part was only effective via the 14th amendment. Prior to the amendment, some authorities declared citizenship on the basis of jus soli birth, but such citizenship was with doubt and is NOT legally characterized as natural-born. The Supreme Court defined only ONE type of citizenship that is characterized as natural-born: birth on the soil to citizen parents. Thanks for helping prove me right.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years
First let me say "well spotted".
Secondly, there are those that would argue the rules of English require the use of the Masculine pronoun when the gender is indeterminate. I personally think the founders fully intended that only males should be President, but given the state of our constitutional understanding nowadays, I have little doubt that Liberal Judges would argue that it is just an artifact of the rules of English, and that our "living constitution" can be warped to allow it.
If the feminists are accurate in their contention that the use of the generalized masculine pronoun refers only to males rather than being inclusive of both males and females, then the President must be male.
Yet I have no doubt that our modern supreme court would completely disregard original intent, and FORCE us to accept a female regardless of what the Constitution actually says. Now at this time I personally think the best man for President would be Sarah Palin, but it appears that we would need a constitutional amendment to fix this little snag.
The Constitution means what it meant in 1787, (unless amended) not what we would have it mean. Do you disagree?
As much as I dislike Romney, (for several reasons which I won't go into here) I would not attribute support for him to a complete loss of credibility for their knowledge and opinions. They both live in the North-East, and are constantly subjected to a society which is not normal for the rest of the country. As a result of their being surrounded by a sea of liberals, they may believe Romney is the only one that might have a chance at getting elected. While I dislike pragmatism, I don't consider someone an enemy just because they believe in it.
At the moment I am not enthralled by any of the candidates, but the one I dislike the least is Rick Perry. (Rick Santorum might be okay, but he's going to have to do much better before I take a second look at him.)
Not getting into a discussion on the "fairness" of what Eisenhower did, i'm merely pointing out that he was able to do it because the understanding of the law at that time was that he could.
George did it to himself ~ that's why i'm saying "stroke". And Ann? No, this isn't a discussion about what is normal. She imagines this guy is like her ~ but he's 64 and she's not.
What you said above makes no sense. But you probably realize that. Look at Rogers v. Bellei, that decision is clear that birth on the soil is sufficient.
You act as if your statement is enough to make it true. Where is your SCOTUS case confirming "NOT legally characterized as natural-born"?
I'll restate it for you from our previous discussions: Several courts have affirmed that much of the US Constitution and law follows English common law. SCOTUS has said specifically that the US follows this in jus soli citizenship. In English common law "born on the soil" equals "natural born" (usual diplomatic and military exceptions.)
Further for your fantasy that "14th amendment citizenship" is somehow different than "non 14th amendment citizenship, " see Rogers v Bellei, quoting Afroyim v Rusk:
And in Afroyim, both majority and dissenting Justices appear to have agreed on the basic proposition that the scope of the Citizenship Clause, whatever its effect, did reach all citizens. The opinion of the Court in Afroyim described the Citizenship Clause as "calculated completely to control the status of citizenship."Which meas that the 14th amendment controls and applies to all US citizens. The 14th amendment does not make separate categories of born citizens.
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.