Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: null and void; bvw

You’ve both read more on this than I, but the little I’ve seen of Blackstone suggests that ‘natural born’ referred to those who would be classified as citizens by birth, because it is assumed that they would have been born into a natural allegiance to the state, and what has changed over time in the US is who legally would be so classified.

The logic would have gone from ‘if A, then B and if B, then C’ to ‘if A1, then B and if B, then C’.


146 posted on 08/08/2008 7:57:56 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]


To: 9YearLurker; David; Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
You’ve both read more on this than I

*shrug*

I've learned a lot from David and Gatún.

149 posted on 08/08/2008 8:21:06 AM PDT by null and void (Barack Obama - International Man of Mystery...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

To: 9YearLurker
That's a reasonable understanding, except for a couple of important nuances. "Natural born" is better read as "born into a natural allegiance". Just the place birth alone does not completely establish that. For example one may be born into a known family of traitors -- take for example a possible son of Benedict Arnold. I doubt that the he would have been found eligible under the "natural born" clause, because loyalty by birth to his father would be assumed at the same or greater level than loyalty by birth to the sovereign. Although if that same theoretical son had himself fought courageously in the Revolution or the War of 1812 -- maybe. Why? Because later events in the son's life were a proof where the loyalty by birth lay. Without that proof, the son of a traitor's status is dubious. Others might not even accept that as proof, and find the son not "born to a natural allegiance".

But what of the case of a son of a father (or mother) who never was a citizen? In that case I think there is not way for the son to make a proof greater than what will always be the allegiance to his father's (or mother's) country.

That is my read of the extended discussion in Blackstone.

And that is the first nuance.

The second is that the Founder's, clearly did not fully accept the Blackstone/English common law take on "natural born", where it can be read as accepting just the place of birth as a determination in perpetuity. That is, just because children were born in the colonies, prior to the Constitution or the Revolution did not make them forever British subjects. Viz the War of 1812.

151 posted on 08/08/2008 8:22:53 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson