Posted on 01/07/2009 12:49:42 PM PST by ml/nj
I previously have posted the Oxford English Dictionary definitions and usage histories for natural-born and native born in some long thread about the question of Obama's Constitutional eligiblity to assume the office of President. But that thread was eventually deleted, and I think these definitions should be available for discussion here.
Lawyers use the OED because it is sometimes the only way to examine what words meant at the time they were used to craft legislation. So here are the entries for these phrases:
Of note to me is that at least some of the usages of native-born and particularly the ones whose dates bracket the drafting of the Constitution suggest that this term has as much to do with whom one is born to as to where one is born. I also note that the entry for natural-born suggests comparison with the one for native-born which seems to have nothing to do with who ones parents are.
Whatever natural-born means, it means something. That everyone would turn their heads and pretend otherwise will not be good for the rule of law in this country.
ML/NJ
Every once in a while around here, I am reminded of the old adage, "Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig."
Since the 14th Amendment "contemplates only two two sources of citizenship" it must have nothing to do with the question at hand. That question has to do with narrowing the class of citizens into some subset of the whole as does the Constitution. (Pea brains take note! We are talking about the supreme law of the land here.)
One might also note that John McCain would, at most, qualify as a naturalized citizen according to the foregoing. Somehow, I think that John McCain should have some class of citizenship superior to my father (who came here when he was 17) but maybe that's just me.
ML/NJ
“I’m saying that our nation does not have the right to force citizenship on those that don’t legally ask for citizenship.”
No, what you’re actually saying is that our nation does not have the right to force citizenship on those whose parents didn’t legally ask for it. The Wong Kim Ark case holds differently.
“The Senate is now a national office rather than a state office”
I understand people’s trust in elected representatives over the masses, but this point has always bugged the crap out of me. To call it a state office is ridiculous. Senators exercise their authority with the best interest of their state at heart (hopefully), but it is the U.S. Constitution which imbues them with authority, and as such they are a part of the federal government (the Constitution being the document that gives power to the federal government).
“You’ve tried to argue that there are only and have been only two typesd of citizenship. This is false since we know—for example—that at one time Black people were considered at least a third type of citizen.”
Wrong. Black people were considered property. They had no legal standing as citizens. What you are probably referring to is the infamous “three-fifths clause” of the Constitution, which says:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Notice how it says “persons,” not citizens. Never and nowhere were slaves considered citizens.
“They were legally barred by our laws and not here on a special visa that is the difference you always ignore.”
You really have to explain why you think this “legally barred” thing makes them so special.
Yikes! All this legal talk again. If he was not born in Hawaii he has committed FRAUD. Obama, the Democratic party, Pelosi, Reid, the whole bunch of them have committed FRAUD if he was born in Kenya. He would then be a criminal by having committed mail fraud.
“All of the men who included themselves in the exception clause (the grandfather clause) in the Constitution were born on this continent, but their fathers were not American citizens. If what you are trying to float were definitive, there would appear to have been no need for the exception clause to be written into the Constitution.”
Wrong. Although Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. were born on the American continent, they were not born on U.S. soil. There was no United States before the Constitution was ratified, and therefore there would have been no one eligible to be president until 35 after ratification, had not the grandfather clause been inserted. Their fathers not being American citizens had nothing to do with it. Or rather, nothing more to do with it than they themselves not being citizens at birth.
“What kind of citizenship did black people hold before the emancipation proclamation and the Constitutional Amendment citing full citizenship, if there have been only two forms of citizenship?”
Who ever told you black people were citizens before the 14th amendment? Haven’t you ever heard of Dred Scott?
“But if you think about it, all citizens of this Republic are ‘naturalized’ due to being stipulated citizens by a Constitutional entry.”
This is a nonsensical sentence.
If Dred Scott had had no degree of citizenship, he would never have made it to the Supreme Court. Is that correct?
“If Dred Scott had had no degree of citizenship, he would never have made it to the Supreme Court. Is that correct?”
You really should go back and read the decision. Majority opinion found that neither Scott, nor any other black person for that matter, could bring suit in federal court.
The lower courts understood the issue differently. The first trial found against him, the second set him free, and the third overturned the decision. The case had to get to SCOTUS in order for it to be able to rule that he had no standing to sue. By the time it got to that level, it hardly mattered whether the other courts granted him a “degree of citizenship,” as you put it. SCOTUS has final say, and it said he was in no way a citizen.
I thought you might appreciate a note from the "smug bastard."
I also recommend the OED's Introduction to you to. (Have you ever even held a volume in your hand?) You see what the OED attempts to be is a history of the each word (or phrase) in the English Language, very definitely including US usage. Unlike the paperback dictionary you probably use which has current meanings of words used by the unwashed, the major thrust of the OED is to enable us now to discover the meanings of English words at the time they were used. They do this by providing usage examples for the first time a word was used with a particular meaning. They invite people to submit other meanings and/or earlier usages to them (which I have done BTW, but not related to natural-born) so that as successive editions of the Dictionary come out, these histories are more accurate. The unwashed with their paperback dictionaries are unaware of all this, but now you are not.
BTW, if you don't want to read the OED Introduction and would be more comfortable with a trade book, I would suggest The Professor and the Madman, by Simon Winchester. (Note that this book may have a different title outside the US.) It's really quite a good book for people interested in out English language.
ML/NJ
No trap, fact. There are two categories of citizenship - natural born or citizen at birth, and naturalized. If people aren't one then they're the other.
But if you think about it, all citizens of this Republic are 'naturalized' due to being stipulated citizens by a Constitutional entry.
Only in that Congress has defined what qualifies one as a natural born citizen. And they have to, if you think about it. Unless Congress identifies those who don't need to be naturalized then how do they identify those who do?
I notice you didn't try to address the issue of partial citizenship.
Because it doesn't exist. That's like being partially pregnant. You are either a citizen or you are not. If you are a citizen then you are either a citizen from birth or you are not. There is nothing else. Nothing recognized by law or by Constitution at least.
That's why SCOTUS needs to address it from a Constitutional eligibilty perspective.
Looks like the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.
I don’t appreciate your note. I know what the OED is. I know what it tries to do. Nowhere in the definition you posted is there any “clear” evidence that “natural-born citizen” means what you believe it to mean.
When the constitution was drafted the Senate was intended to be a vehicle for the States to be represented. As such Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures. Thus while their office was a national office, their job was to represent the state and if they didn't do it, they would not be senators for long.
The founders set aside the Congress as a vehicle for the people to directly elect their own representatives. They then elected their state representatives who would in turn elect the Senators. The president was to be elected by "electors" chosen from the congressional districts who would go to the electoral college and pick a president.
It was a very good set up and ensured that the Federal Government would not become a "democracy" where the people of the United States could directly elect not only congressmen, but Senators and a President who would endure themselves to the masses by giving them money from the public largess.
“It was a very good set up and ensured that the Federal Government would not become a ‘democracy’ where the people of the United States could directly elect not only congressmen, but Senators and a President who would endure themselves to the masses by giving them money from the public largess.”
I undserstand all that, and it probably was a better system back when. But they are both small mechanisms as they relate to the whole of our system of government. We don’t stop being a Republic and become a “democracy” just because Senators are directly elected. We still have our Constitution, our checks and balances, and our federalism, all three of which are vastly more important in my eyes than how we elect Senators.
Tough nuggies.
You claim that there is randomness in the entries of the OED and you claim that you know what it tries to do. This is so mindbogglingly ignorant a juxtaposition of statements that it leave me speechless.
I do believe that the quotes I posted at the start of this thread would indicate that parents, or at least parent, mattered when considering the usage of the phrase natural-born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The alternative seems to me to be that the OED got it wrong, which is certainly a possibility but one that would need to be demonstrated.
ML/NJ
Am I missing something or didn't you just say the exact same thing in different words? '[sic] until 35 after ratification' notwithstanding.
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.