Replies

"The framers of the constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance" never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude." According to Blackstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.
America's Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good people of these Colonies...are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." According to Blackstone, the common law regards this as "high treason." So the common law--the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance--could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e. republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!" - Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science

I read this to mean that being an American is different than the preceding reality, and that being an American citizen is not something imposed on someone by an accident of birth. It can derive from being born in American to Americans, or it can be earned by the citizenship process. It is an actual right, not an obligation. We even allow people to leave!

The question still lingers: What did the Founding Fathers mean with a restriction unique to holding the office of the president, that of needing to be not just a citizen, but to be a 'natural born' citizen.

I believe that their intent was to exclude anyone with any hint of divided loyalties, specifically including a certain fondness for a place of birth other than on US soil disqualifies.

I listened to Leo Donafrio’s interview this evening on the Lan Lamphere program. He said this will be his last intervew until after December 5th when the SC has their conference concerning his case. He will be spending a lot of time preparing for the posibility that he will be called in right after the 5th do present his arguements before the Court.

Lan happened to mention that he was called this afternoon by someone from FOX and they talked to him about coming on a show to talk about his following this case. Lan said he told them he is not interested! He also told him that he is the MSM following Leo Donafrio’s case since NO OTHER MEDIA cared to report the news that MATTERS! Loved it!

Leo will only be talking with Lan Lamphere on December 5th or 6th and will keep his web site up to date when new information comes up.

Will be interested to see who talks about this tomorrow. It is certainly about time!! Even Drudge, Rush,Sean,Mark,Laura are behind on this issue!

The Founders concept of loyalties is the best proof that children of military/diplomatic officers born aboard are indeed Natural born citizens. There would be no divided loyalties in such cases merely because of being born outside the US.

While those concepts apertaining to a King were not relevant to a Republic often a mere substitution is involved replacing King or Kingdom with State. And it is also a fact that Blackstone was the most relevant piece of legal doctrine in the early republic particularly as for as legal theory goes.