Replies

I have delayed responding to you so as to contemplate how an argument might be crafted to penetrate that layer of defensive denial surrounding you. You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.

That your interpretation yields "natural born citizens" who are completely unloyal "Americans" does not seem to cause you the least bit of concern. Likewise the notion that an interpretation that does not accomplish the explicit task for which it was designed, and therefore MUST be an incorrect interpretation, also holds no significance for you.

What I keep returning to is a conclusion that there is no reasoned path to your mind, and efforts to seek one out are destined to fail. I do however, have one last argument, though I doubt it will work either.

Let us consider the Israel to be akin to America, and let us consider some Jordanian born Palestinian to be the equivalent of a Nigerian Communist on temporary visa to America.

If the aforementioned Palestinian man visits Israel and has a child in Israel with an Israeli Palestinian, let's assume he is therefore (according to your reckoning) a "natural born citizen" of Israel. Let us further assert that his Father never became an Israeli citizen, and that his mother and subsequent Egyptian step-father taught their child the usual Palestinian Hatred of Israel that they seemingly all grow up with.

As the Child grows up, he abjure's his father's Muslim faith and becomes a devotee of Reform Judaism. (so he says) Due to a combination of the vote from the Entire Arab population of Israel and all the members of the Labor party and a Partisan Left-Wing Propaganda spreading Israeli Media which covers up all derogatory information about him, He stands a good chance of wining the Prime Minister's slot, where he promises to cut Israel's defenses by 50% and eliminate Israel's atomic bombs.

Would it be out of place to point out that this is NOT the sort of man to whom the founders referred when they created the "natural born citizen" requirement? Would they have regarded this man as acceptable within their definition?

Please don't assert that such would never happen, or that Israeli law doesn't work like ours, because those arguments are just attempts to dodge the question. Face the question forthrightly and simply answer, Is this what anybody had in mind when they defined "natural born citizen" for the purpose of keeping out foreign influence?

On the other hand, forget it. I know better than to attempt this, because you will simply not answer this question honestly. Silly me. Who uses honesty in a debate? Sure, the "natural born citizen" of Israel is perfectly legitimate, and no one should worry about how he grew up with a complete un-loyalty to Israel. What was I thinking?

You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.

And you seem to ignore what the Founders were actually concerned about. Tucker (and others) speak of foreign influence and Tucker specifically mentions the Dutch revolt.

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country.

If you look it up, you will see that Holland was ruled for a time by Spaniards, appointed stadtholders by Spain, and the office – as Tucker mentions – became hereditary. So his (and other Founders’) concerns were not for those born of foreigners on US soil who are US citizens, but for foreigners born elsewhere who are not, but who might be naturalized only for the purpose of seeking the presidency. See what Joseph Story has to say on this:

It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

This is well explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #68

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?

Showing that the chief concern was not US citizens born of foreign immigrants, but rather concern about foreign governments trying to insert their own officials into the US government.

Your desire to second guess the Founders makes me question whether you believe in a so-called “living Constitution,” a position which is clearly not conservative. Such a position really means one can change the interpretation of the Constitution with circumstances to make it say what we want. That is a very dangerous path, allowing judges to decide the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean at a particular time, something all good Conservatives must oppose. Once again, if you don’t like what it says, amend it, but don’t claim it says what you want when it doesn’t.

I have a counter situation, in this country, to offer you. Suppose a child is born on US soil to two citizen parents (not particularly patriotic citizens, but US citizens none the less). They move to another country within a few months of the child’s birth, and the child is raised overseas, with whatever extreme ideas the parents hold. The child returns to the US an adult, at the age of 35. Fourteen years later, age 49, he runs for president. Now, undoubtedly this was not the sort of man the Founders would have envisioned as president. However, unacceptable as this man may be, he is legally eligible to run.

The Founders expected that the populace would know better than to elect such a person, and that those among us who do know better would do a good job of explaining why this person is unacceptable. And if the populace doesn’t know better (obviously didn’t in 2008), it’s our task to work within the law to turn him out of office by electing someone else, or even to amend the Constitution so it couldn’t happen again. It is not correct for us to claim the Constitution or the law says something it doesn’t. That merely opens the way for the other side to do the same, until the Constitution has no meaning at all. Not a far cry from libs who claim the Founders never envisioned gangs slaughtering each other and bystanders with firearms, so it’s Ok to prohibit privately owned weapons. Is that what you want? I don’t.