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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Your quote is pulled from Section 1473. Having said that it really needs to be read in context from Section 1471 through 1473.
Unfortunately you can't cut and paste from there so I'll see if I can get it from elsewhere to copy here.
The only problem with their plan is that the electors of today have no idea what a natural born citizen is and they're little more than robotic party functionaries.
The political independence of the president of the United States, so far as it is necessary to the preservation, protection, and defence of the constitution, is secured, not only by the limitations and restrictions which the constitution imposes upon the legislative powers of congress, but by a qualified negative on all their proceedings, as has been already mentioned elsewhere.
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 response above simply engenders a "huh?" moment for me. You articulate some of the founder's dire concern at keeping out foreign influence in the executive, and you overlook completely how such influence can also be manifest through ties of family, as it is with our current Usurper.
This man was Born (somewhere not yet fully determined to be Hawaii, but even if it is, Hawaii is as far outside the norm among US States as you can get.) of a Foreign Father, whom he idolized in his Fantasy Book, then Adopted and Raised as an Indonesian speaking Muslim for many influential years of his childhood by a Foreign Step-Father in a non-Democratic Islamic nation, spent much of his life referring to his Kenyan Homeland, Would have inherited lands in Kenya (and possibly in Indonesia had the right events occurred.) had he been able to actually PROVE his father was Barack Obama Sr., currently has illegal immigrant relatives living in this nation, has campaigned on behalf of the foreign Despots in Kenya to whom he is related by blood, And you think all of this fits the concept of Keeping out foreign influence in our Executive?
Again, "Huh?" As I said before, "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.
The Man is barely an American at all, and if that, only by the skin of his teeth. If he was born in Canada, (Not yet ruled out.) He is not EVEN an American.
He is the most UnLoyal (and corrupt) "American" ever to rise so high in our Government. I know EXACTLY how those Dutch Revolutionaries felt about King Philip II!
You are not exchanging messages with a novice. It is not MY SIDE which is second guessing the founders. I have done enough research to realize that the custom and laws of the time period were that the Child is always of the same nationality as his Father,(even for the English) and that his citizenship is a derivative thereof. If the Father changes citizenship, the child also does so automatically. (As does the Wife) Even the Laws of England, which your side partially quotes ad nauseum requires that the Parents must be in ACTUAL Obedience of the King. (Which I interpret as intending to live and reside within the Kings Obedience, i.e. become British. Even then, the Children cannot inherit any lands owned by the Parents)
The NORMAL way of life among human families of the period is that Father and Mother should live together and raise the child with a love of family and country. This pseudo-bastard Obama is completely outside the norm as understood by the founders. By all rights, he should have grown up in Kenya with his father, but when the left is involved, what is natural gets twisted and becomes sick. (There is a reason why the Latin word for left is "sinistra" (sinister.) )
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.
Again, he meets the TECHNICAL requirements, but completely violates the Spirit. * Even so, this proposed hypothetical citizen has a better claim on eligibility than does Obama, because NEITHER of Obama's Fathers was ever an American Citizen. He has NEVER been raised by an AMERICAN FATHER.
Now you may argue that the achieved result would be the same, but it overlooks the fact that the Founders could only do their Best to filter it out, and that under extreme circumstances their efforts may very well break down. The best they could hope for is to set forth a rule that will work in MOST circumstances, not all. As Madison had written of the convention regarding what part of the common law was to be recognized: "If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution. "
.
* As I mentioned before: 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.
This cannot be done when all means of communicating with the public trace back to Liberal Democrat Strongholds where every employee is a member of a Union and comes from districts that are 80% Democrat. (New York and Los Angeles are the Major Media Centers in this nation, and they are completely under the control of Liberal Democrats. Contrary information is NOT PERMITTED to get through their control of the Airwaves. There is a video in the possession of the Los Angeles Times which would very likely have wrecked Obama's political aspirations had it gotten out to the public. (He's partying with known Anti-Israel Terrorist types.) These people (Whose JOB it is to properly inform the public) WILL NOT let the public hear the truth about this man. )
Till the means of communicating with the public can be wrested from the grip of our enemies, there is no real hope of informing the public to make better decisions.
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.
Or to force compliance with already existing laws, such as requiring an officer of each state's government to verify the credentials of someone running for office, which has YET to be done regarding this man. We don't even know for sure *IF* he was born in Hawaii. (Again, what other state will actually issue birth certificates to children not born there?)
It is not correct for us to claim the Constitution or the law says something it doesn’t.
I agree. So people should stop saying that 14th amendment citizenship is the SAME THING as "natural born citizen" status. Obviously the one preexisted the other, so it cannot be a derivative thereof.
That merely opens the way for the other side to do the same, until the Constitution has no meaning at all.
Dude, I have news for you. We are there NOW. Letting a dual national become President is an ABSOLUTE violation, as far as i'm concerned. Most of what the government does nowadays is completely unconstitutional. Today, the commerce clause means a farmer doesn't have a right to eat his own wheat. (U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wickard vs Filburn.) Women have a right to Hire Doctors to Kill their Children, But the Father must pay child support because he doesn't have that option, Cities can take away land that belongs to one person and give it to another (Kelo v New London) and Now, people exhibiting characteristics that were defined as a Mental Disease prior to 1973 (Homosexuality) have the "right" to "marry" and be in the military. Dude, we are far away from where the constitution ever permitted us to be.
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.
It's funny you should mention that. Gangs slaughtering each other is a manifestation of OTHER violations of the U.S. Constitution. Our entire welfare system makes it possible for fathers to abandon their children, and leave the mothers receiving checks from the government (thereby feeding the future gang members.) which allows them to run the streets without any authoritative control until they develop the habit of ignoring all authority. Thank you Liberals and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Your Unconstitutional, Trillion dollar "War on Poverty" has been a great success! (At increasing the poor underclass and getting it to vote reliably Democrat.)