NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP NOT DEFINED BY BIRTH CERTIFICATES

The Daily Pen ^ | 02/26/2012 | Dan Crosby

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

First, even if that 1811 letter was written by Madison -- a huge assumption and stretch for reasons already pointed out -- it should not matter. Again, the idiosyncratic beliefs of particular people involved in drafting the Constitution is not relevant. For reasons Justice Scalia has been explaining cogently for years, what matters is what the average American who voted for delegates for ratification would have thought. The meaning of the Constitution should not change from the ordinary meaning of the words at the time simply just because the drafters had an idiosyncratic view not reflected in the actual text. The power to make the Constitution the Supreme Law of the land came from the people, not from those who wrote it, so it is the common understanding that matters.

But even assuming we should go with what Madison thought, you are clearly wrong. Madison -- by name -- is on record in 1789 as endorsing jus solis.

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives.

So there's Madison for you. Acknowledging the existence of both the jus solis (place of birth) and jus sanguinas (parentage) theories, and specifically stating that jus solis applies in the United States. Not surprising, given that was exactly what the common law was throughout his entire life up to that point.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

But it is undeniable that those who ratified the constituion knew this: A born British Subject would not be eligible for the presidency.

Actually, our first 10 or so Presidents were all born British Subjects.

I don't believe any rational legislator/political thinker would define citizenship for their country based on how other nations determine citizenship for their country at a given time. That makes your citizenship laws dependent upon the whims of other nations, which is just plain stupid.

[Natufian]

That same statement also makes clear that HDOH has to verify the facts of birth location before they appear on the birth certificate.

[Yosemitest]

The ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF has forged ...yes, I said FORGED, as in FRAUD, FALSE, ...he has FORGED not one, not two, BUT THREE FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
And Don Wilkie wants to cite those FORGERIES for proof?
You can't be serious!
And Phil Gramm? Come on!
You don't remember, the Base Realignment And Closure Committee (BRACC), because our elected officials don't want to be held responsible for their actions?
Phil Gramm wasn't ALL bad, but he was pretty weak!

[x]

The Federalist Papers were originally published in New York, in 1787-1788. It's possible that Madison could have submitted articles under that name to Virginia papers over twenty years later, but it's by no means certain, and the possibility of another author isn't excluded. Surely Madison had more important things on his mind, but I guess if someone's obsessed about this now, it's natural to assume he was obsessed about the same issue way back then.

One thing about this McClure case: when McClure was born in the 1780s the federal law of citizenship hadn't yet developed so state laws and the rules states had developed would have been more important than they would be with those born after the Constitution was adopted and the federal government developed its own laws and rules about citizenship. Once the federal law of citizenship had developed, thinking in the states in pre-Constitutional days ceased to be as relevant in resolving citizenship questions as it might have been in the McClure's affair.

Second: McClure must have been a very particular case. The Founders themselves had been British subjects before the Revolution. Some of them had actually been born in the British Isles. They became US citizens when America became independent. Just why McClure and his father would have been any different from Scots-born James Wilson or John Witherspoon or Irish-born William Paterson or Pierce Butler or James McHenry or Thomas Fitzsimmons is something that has to be clarified and explained.