Replies

I read a legal document once that spoke of “firearms”, and in the “definitions” section of the document it actually defined what was meant by the use of the word “firearms” in the document. In that definition was knives.

One of the flaws in our constitution is that it doesn’t do that with the phrase “natural born citizen”, leaving a path for some to twist it to mean anything they want.

To me, it means BOTH of your parents are American citizens and you grew up in the US. I even allow for you to be born off of US soil if your parents were on vacation at the time, or working for the US or otherwise temporarily overseas.

But Kamala was born to two foreign nationals at the time. That is not what I’d call “natural born citizen”.

But that’s just me. I’m sure Rachel Maddow would have a different take on it.

One of the flaws in our constitution is that it doesn’t do that with the phrase “natural born citizen”, leaving a path for some to twist it to mean anything they want.

From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:

If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.
In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.

In 1791, just two years after the ratification of the Constitution, Thomas Paine wrote in The Rights Of Man that "foreigners" and "half a foreigner" were often rulers in England, as opposed to the American President who must be a native of their country.

It begs the question, what did he mean by "half a foreigner?" I interpret "half a foreigner" as someone who has one parent who is not a citizen of the land. A "foreigner" would be a person with neither parent being a citizen. This is described as a person who "is never in full natural or political connection with the country," which is what the Framers of the Constitution intended to avoid.

Since this was written just two years after ratification of the Constitution, and given that Paine was a respected writer at the time, I take this to be the common understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant at the time of ratification of the Constitution.

-PJ