Replies

There is no rational basis for you to claim the founders "declined to identify and to describe the term" or even that there was a need to do so. It is certain they were confident of their usage of the term, that it was well understood at the time at least by those who would sign the document and thought appropriate.

You claim the founders were certain and confident of their usage. Yet here we are - 237 years later and legal experts, courts, historians and millions others are on both sides of the fence on this NBC issue. I tell you again. This was by design. They left it up to Congress to interpret what is and isn't a NBC

In effect, they might have believed, such questions as who was a "natural born citizen" would be determined by Congress as it ruled out some candidates and ruled in others.

As we know Congress has tried to do this as well as the Courts. They have failed.

However, this would be a good time for you to explain why you believe they seemed to purposely obscure the meaning of the term since you claim to know.

Educate yourself.

With that, I am going to do things more enjoyable than exchanging with you.

Good Day Sir.

Question...

You say, There was a specific reason why the founders declined to identify and describe what exactly an NBC is. Do you know why? I do.

You then cite an article from 2016 by law professor Malinda L. Seymore of Texas A&M as your expert. Why? Can you explain yourself as to why you think this person has the definitive answer?

In Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton explained their intent with confidence that they handled the NBC matter themselves quite well. Now you suggest otherwise.

Hamilton wrote:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.

Hamilton explicitly wrote "But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention," but you now claim that the Framers punted the definition of NBC to Congress.

Didn't Hamilton mean that "creatures of their own" raised by "foreign powers" were the children of non-citizen parents who still held allegiance to their home country but were raising their children in the United States?

When Hamilton wrote "But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention," wasn't he referring to the natural born citizen requirement in Article II section 1? When he wrote "with the most provident and judicious attention" wasn't he stating that the Framers gave it very thoughtful consideration?

How do you square Hamilton's words with your own?

-PJ