Ok.
Here’s the deal.
First, in the interest of full disclosure I was taught that NBC means born on the soil of citizen parents.
But that was back in the late 60’s, early 70’s.
While I cannot believe now that any of my high school teachers were omniscient or even had doctorates in history, it seems to me that it would have been maybe a bit unorthodox for them to teach something that was against the established view at that time.
As far as the arguments raised.
One can look at the whole set of things raised and say “Well, it’s the Obama supporters versus those anti Obama”. I admit to being anti-Obama, but because of his policies, not because of where the hell he was born.
In fact, if it came to ejecting him because of some determination that he was Constitutionally ineligible, that might be a cataclysm, whole cities might burn to the ground.
In my view it might be even worse if we ignore the Constitutional mandates and pretend like everything is fine.
But it’s not. And here’s why.
We hear over and over this rhetoric that almost amounts to pleas for us to accept that some Supreme Court case at some time is the controlling factor. And it relies on the Supreme Court saying something about the common law.
My first question would be “How can Supreme Court decisions that happened well after the Constitution was written be deemed a controlling factor in what they actually meant when it was written?”
Answer:
They can’t. The founders were not depending on something that happened many years later.
Not to mention the fact that NONE of the decisions were actually faced with the question at hand, which is “What constitutes a natural born citizen?”
We KNOW the founders had access to Vattel.
We KNOW there was a Convention that argued the new Constitution.
What happened?
At one point, an early draft of the Constitution was put together, with alot of Hamilton’s input. In it he said that the president (I believe at that time Hamilton was arguing for a Governor, not a president, even though it would have been a name difference only) should be a “born citizen”.
Washington was president of the convention. He soon got a letter from John Jay suggesting that qualifications for the head of the new republic should be more stringent, being a NATURAL born citizen.
NATURAL being and adjective, being a descriptor, which fits in perfectly with what Vattel said. Because what Vattel said was a perfect union of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguines (sp?).
So the history of the convention shows us how the idea evolved, from being just a “born citizen”, to being a “natural born citizen”, with NO RELIANCE WHATSOEVER on any idea of “natural born subject” in the British realm.
Geirge Mason, delegate from Virginia, even stated at one point during the convention that “The common law of England is not the common law of these States”. He was a judge in his county, so he probably knew what he was talking about.
How many times have we heard about the founders believing in NATURAL LAW?
Le droit des gens, ou les principe de loi naturelle
The rights of men, or the principles of natural law.
BTW, there is no doubt there is scrubbing going on in the net, I’ve had to make numerous alternate searches for some items because the originals have been deleted. Isn’t that like what nazis do?
[I’ll respond to this one sentence alone in this post, and then move on.]
“In my view it might be even worse if we ignore the Constitutional mandates and pretend like everything is fine.”
It’s been that way ever since Teddy Roosevelt refused to amend the Constitution for national parks. He prefered to form national parks through unconstitutional legislation. I am all for a reasonable amendment to create national parks, but the argument has been, “Either you oppose national parks or you support them.”
Taft refused to go along with Teddy’s unconstitutional scheme, which led to the Bull Moose Party, the first official RINOs.
Then came FDR who threatened to pack the courts. And now we are in a nation that hasn’t accepted the Constitution as an actual contract for decades.
Now for this sentence:
“My first question would be ‘How can Supreme Court decisions that happened well after the Constitution was written be deemed a controlling factor in what they actually meant when it was written?’”
I’m just a layman, but as I understand it, judicial review can clarify any questions raised by legislation. Then new legislation can overrule that clarification. The concept of judicial review is not something accepted by all Constitutional scholars.
For those who do believe that judicial review is Constitutional, most of them recognize that any precedent can be overturned by a future court, that a legal decision is no stronger than the weight of its logic.
Maybe I’m wrong, but activist judges challenge precedent — heck, that’s what they live for. What is the logic they use to challenge and/or overturn precedent? They must have some kind of justification. Why can’t original intent be fought for half as vigorously?
“Washington was president of the convention. He soon got a letter from John Jay suggesting that qualifications for the head of the new republic should be more stringent, being a NATURAL born citizen.”
I can back that up with the same link I’ve been referring to:
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
[quote]
John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.
[unquote]
“BTW, there is no doubt there is scrubbing going on in the net, I’ve had to make numerous alternate searches for some items because the originals have been deleted. Isn’t that like what nazis do?”
I think much of the “scrubbing” is actually tampering by google and other search engines. They scrub hits. I remember when Google let the chips fall where they may. You could get tons of hits for incredibly narrow searches. You could do a COMPLETE self search of anything you posted.
I miss those days. It makes research much more difficult now, and techonology is supposed to make resarch easier, not the reverse.