Posted on 12/16/2022 4:02:55 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Dec. 15, 2022) — What if your humble servant were to reveal something here at The P&E which could, once and for all, put an end to “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) debate raging in the comments sections of numerous posts here? What if recently-discovered “hard” evidence – in the form of a letter from John Jay to David Brearley, Chairman of the “Committee on Postponed Matters” at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 – was produced? And what if that letter confirmed the intent of the Founders to rely on § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations for its definition of an nbC, requiring birth in the nation to parents who were already U.S. Citizens? Would that change any of the minds of those who believe that the only criterion for an nbC is to be born here as a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth?” Curious? Read on. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
The "common understanding" is not synonymous with "true."
Rawle was not a delegate.
Rawle wrote in 1826 “Therefore 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.”
Yes, I am quite familiar with Rawle. No man has done more damage to the topic than William Rawle. I used to think Rawle was just mistaken, because he was London trained in Law, and perhaps did not know any better, but I have found what I consider to be good proof that Rawle was lying and deliberately lying.
It took me a long time to wrap my head around why Rawle was saying something that was incorrect, and for which he had been repeatedly corrected by more prominent authorities at the time, including the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (Which I think they called the High Court of Errors and Appeals" or some such at the time.)
Rawle was wrong. Had been told he was wrong, (Negro Flora v. Joseph Graisberry) yet he still persisted in promulgating his wrong understanding of the law.
Can you guess why Rawle would lie about such a thing?
If you have researched William Rawle, you might actually know the answer to that question.
I agree that the common understanding determines the meaning of words, but it does not determine the meaning of facts.
Yes, the people can change what words mean, and have done so over the years. The word "gay" comes to mind.
But the common understanding of people cannot change what the words originally meant, and constitutional law is based on what they meant at the time they were incorporated into our laws.
Except to the extent subsequent constitutional enactments change that meaning.
Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, there was no constitutional definition of what constituted a citizen, and that includes whether someone was a "natural born citizen" - the Constitution originally left that phrase completely undefined. Although regardless of whether you go with jus solis or jus sanguinas, The most reasonable textual interpretation of "natural born citizen" is someone who was a citizen the moment they were born.
Whatever ambiguity existed was resolved by Section 1 of 14th Amendment, which not only drew a distinction between citizens who are born, and those who are naturalized, but also is not limited to the context of slavery as slavery is not mentioned anywhere in that Section.
I think creating threeclasses of citizen, those who are "natural born", those who are citizens at birth, and those were naturalized is not a concept supported anywhere in either the original Constitution, or by any of its Amendments. I know you don't agree with that, and that's okay. I'm not going to go around and around on this for the 50th time in the last decade or so. I think the textual meaning is pretty clear, and I'll just leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word.
A quibble. They cannot change it's meaning, they can only revoke it's intent. Did the 14th amendment revoke "natural born citizen" as a requirement for President?
I don't think so.
Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, there was no constitutional definition of what constituted a citizen, and that includes whether someone was a "natural born citizen" - the Constitution originally left that phrase completely undefined.
Some time back I ran across a comment on another website talking about a Polish dictionary from the 1870s. Under "horse", the definition said: "Everyone knows what a horse is."
In 1787, everyone knew what a "citizen" was, and everyone knew that a "citizen" was not a "subject." English law applied to "subjects". It did not apply to "citizens." English law didn't even know what that was in 1776.
Although regardless of whether you go with jus solis or jus sanguinas, The most reasonable textual interpretation of "natural born citizen" is someone who was a citizen the moment they were born.
The most reasonable textual interpretation is that which descends from the "natural law" foundation which justified the creation of the nation. "Natural Law" was a thing in 1776. It continued to be a thing until around the 1820s.
Whatever ambiguity existed was resolved by Section 1 of 14th Amendment, which not only drew a distinction between citizens who are born, and those who are naturalized, but also is not limited to the context of slavery as slavery is not mentioned anywhere in that Section.
Slavery isn't mentioned in the body of the US Constitution, but I can point out to you at least two places where that is exactly what they were discussing even though they failed to specifically say "slaves or slavery."
The 14th amendment was specifically about slavery, and pretty much only slavery. You can find out by reading the debates on the 14th, which I have. Scalia would agree the 14th is about giving citizenship to freed slaves.
I think creating threeclasses of citizen, those who are "natural born", those who are citizens at birth, and those were naturalized is not a concept supported anywhere in either the original Constitution, or by any of its Amendments.
The laws which naturalize at birth are not a third class. They are part of the "naturalization" class, and that class was very much indeed understood and acknowledged by the founders.
Therefore, two classes of citizens. Natural, and Naturalized. "At birth" has not a d@mn thing to do with it. They could have set the point at 10 months, a year, or whatever. It's still naturalization.
Look at some of these statutes. They even say naturalization on them. Congress only has the power to naturalize.
I think the textual meaning is pretty clear, and I'll just leave it at that.
Some people simply aren't bothered about something being wrong, or injustices being committed. I have become familiar with such a mindset. Your view is not uncommon.
Feel free to have the last word.
My last word is this. I believe I have beaten you completely on every point you have advanced, and if we were being scored by an objective observer, you would be declared to have lost the debate.
I'm okay with that.
William Rawle was born in 1759 and died in 1836. He was not a founder of the nation via any participation in the Continental Congress in 1776. Nor was he a framer of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. And certainly none of his writings in 1829 or otherwise were ever used by any of them in writing the U.S. Constitution since his 1829 writings were neither before or during the founding and framing time frames.
Instead the much discussed the writings of the enlightenment were used by the founders and framers to justify the break from England and to write our founding documents.
And in particular of Vattel’s treatise on enlightenment natural law was used. It was cited as being used by them by several of the founders and framers, such as Franklin and Washington specifically. And per Franklin the use of Vattel was in heavy demand during the founding era as his copy was in great demand by other founders. See Franklin’s letter to Dumas: https://www.scribd.com/document/63130788/Ben-Franklin-thanks-Charles-Dumas-for-Copies-of-Vattel-s-Law-of-Nations-or-Principles-of-Natural-Law
On another point, out of curiosity I searched to see if William Rawle actually served in any military capacity during the Revolutionary War on either side to see where his ideology lay as the founding of our nation. From what I can find, he did not serve in any military capacity that I could find. William Rawle is not listed in the SAR’s listing of Patriot Ancestors.
From my look-see, his step-father was the loyalist mayor of Philadelphia during the revolution and the family eventually fled to New York after the British had to evacuate Philadelphia. William Rawle studied law in England for a time. After the revolutionaries won the war, it appears he of course as a lawyer he saddled up with the winners and moved up the legal and the local connections ladder in post-revolutionary war Philadelphia PA. Thus I think William Rawle, who at heart during the revolutionary era was an English loyalist, is hardly a person who would tout Vattel’s Natural Law and Law of Nations influence on the founders and framers to enable founding the new country and write its founding documents and would instead be much more akin to tout English common law instead. Favor moved towards all that was English especially in 1829 as America moved back to a more friendly relationship with England. And as we know English common law for the most part simply considered the place of one’s birth to be definitive in the claim of the sovereign over the inhabitants. After all, English common law dealt with SUBJECTS, not citizens.
And most certainly, English common law was not used to define who was eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our new nation after the founding generation was gone. It had to be someone born free of foreign influence as per the letter in the summer of 1787 from Jay to Washington, and to which Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention concurred. And only Vattel’s definition of “natural born Citizen” fits that requirement. Read all of Vattel’s Vol. 1 Chapter 19 Section 212 and one will clearly see that: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
The 14th is a Naturalization Law, a man-made Positive Law, added to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. So the slaves and anyone else who gained basic citizenship via the 14th Amendment were naturalized citizens. And of course those new citizens if joined together in union could then procreate natural born Citizens via the Principles of Natural Law, no Positive Law.
Naturalization Law can create new Citizens at Birth by said Positive Law naturalization law and/o via procedures set out in the law later in time after birth. For example see this current naturalization law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 Note nowhere therein is the words “natural born” found. Said Positive Law cannot create a “natural born Citizen” at birth and no Naturalization Law can do that. And any attempts to do so were errors and never were implemented or in the case of the 1790 erroneous Naturalization Act, it was repealed and replaced by the 1795 Act which removed the words “natural born”. And “natural born” has never been used in any of our Naturalization Laws since. Congress cannot create a “natural born Citizen” via a statutory law or a constitutional amendment. Natural born Citizens are the children of two Citizen parents who were Citizens when their child was born.
Naturalization Law can create new Citizens at Birth by said Positive Law naturalization law and/or via procedures set out in the law later in time after birth. For example see this current naturalization law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 Note nowhere therein is the words “natural born” found. Said Positive Law cannot create a “natural born Citizen” at birth and no Naturalization Law can do that. And any attempts to do so were errors and never were implemented or in the case of the 1790 erroneous Naturalization Act, it was repealed and replaced by the 1795 Act which removed the words “natural born”. And “natural born” has never been used in any of our Naturalization Laws since. Congress cannot create a “natural born Citizen” via a statutory law or a constitutional amendment. Natural born Citizens are the children born in the country of two Citizen parents who were Citizens when their child was born.
Rawle’s co-counsel in Negro Flora v. Joseph Graisberry was Jared Ingersoll a Pennsylvania delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Who learned about law at the Middle Temple in London. The same school Rawle attended.Another Middle Temple graduate was Charles Cotesworth Pinckney a South Carolina delegate to the Constitutional Convention (Pinckney also studied law under William Blackstone).
Another co-counsel in the Negro Flora case was William Lewis. Lewis preceded Rawle as the US Attorney for Pennsylvania.
So he was in good company with Pennsylvania lawyers.
He was also in good company in another case, as the US Attorney in the Henfield case which the jury acquitted. In that one Edmund Randolph (US Attorney General) was co-counsel,Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were all convinced Henfield should be prosecuted.
Rawle was appointed by President Washington to be the US Attorney for Pennsylvania. He was a founding member of The Society for Political Inquiries (founded in February 1787) which met at Franklin’s house twice a month in March and April of 1787. All of the delegates from Pennsylvania to the Constitutional Convention were also members of the Society. Thomas Paine wrote the Society’s by-laws.
Now read up on Jared Ingersoll one of the Pennsylvania delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/jared-ingersoll/
William Rawle was not a Patriot during the Revolutionary War. He sided with the King and English common law. He was a Loyalist along with his step-father and mother. His step-father was charged with treason by the Patriots and thus had to flee to New York when the English abandoned Philadelphia. And thus Rawle was a strong advocate for and believer in English common law and was loyal to the King. And under which English common law of course the break from England could not be justified. The founders and framers justified their revolution using the Bible and Natural Law of which Vattel’s Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law was widely read and used by the many of the founders and framers, including the key ones, to write the founding documents. It is only after that the revolutionaries were going to win and then won that he then saddled up to founders and framers. He was looking out for his future career as a lawyer in the new nation. His 1829 writings still clearly indicated that as to his views on the concept of citizenship in our new nation, that he was looking to English common law and not Natural Law and Nature’s Creator for his view of the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” put into the presidential eligibility cause at the suggestion of John Jay to George Washington.
Jared Ingersoll one of the Framers from Pennsylvania was also a loyalist and his father was also a loyalist. Went to the same law school in London as Rawle.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney a Framer from South Carolina was also taught at the law at the same law school as Rawle and Ingersoll. And he attended the lectures of William Blackstone.
The Founders and Framers were educated in the law.
The first American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries was printed in 1771. Fourteen signers of the Declaration of Independence bought copies. John Jay and John Adams bought copies.
Do you feel it is appropriate for a person born with foreign influence and foreign allegiance claims on them via being born a dual-Citizen or tri-Citizen, and thus holding citizenship and thus innate allegiance obligations and requirements since birth to more than one country, to serve as the Commander-in-Chief of our military?
My answer is: No.
4Zoltan, what is your answer to this question, yes or no?
That is an electability issue, not an eligibility issue.
The citizenship laws of other countries play no part in determining who are eligible to be President of the United States.
Who are you, then, that we should ever have taken notice of your writings on this subject?
Or did you simply make a fly-over country grammatical error above?
Another co-counsel in the Negro Flora case was William Lewis. Lewis preceded Rawle as the US Attorney for Pennsylvania.
I am familiar with all of them, and have been for several years. I'm getting the impression that you have just now made their acquaintance.
William Lewis was the Lawyer to whom Samuel Roberts (the guy who compiled that book mentioned earlier) was apprenticed. In those days, experienced lawyers taught younger lawyers, and William Lewis was the man who instructed Samuel Roberts in the law.
I believe I have a better understanding of the material than most and I believe I have probably researched it as well as most of the people who discuss it.
So far as this topic goes, that's who I am.
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.