[Lurking Libertarian]

What was the Framer’s intent when they used the phrase, ‘natural born citizen?’

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."-- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1829)

[itsahoot]

Rawle, apparently was the first in a long line of idiots, that can not understand plain English, and by association that would include you.

[TexasVoter]

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."-- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1829)

Are you suggesting that Rawle was a Framer of the Constitution?

Do you further mean to suggest that a foreigner should be able to father a child on US soil, raise the child abroad as an enemy of the state, and reintroduce that child into the US in time to meet the 14-year residency requirements of Art. 2 Sec. 1? You think that's what John Jay and George Washington intended?

[Agamemnon]

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1829)

This guy was a commentator and a DA for PA as appointed by Washington. Prosecuted the fomenters of the Whisky Rebellion

There is no record of his participation in either the drawing up of the original Articles of Confederation, nor do I have any knowledge that he was ever in any way associated with writing of or contributions made to the Federalist Papers. I do not believe he was in attendance at the Constituional Convention.

I think it's a stretch to name him among "The Framers."

So, like a good many who have confused the meaning of The Framer's" intent for the term "natural born citizen" this fellow is no different, just 175 years removed than those who are just as confused about it today.

FReegards!

[edge919]

Rawle admits in this same essay that his opinion is not universal.

It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion ...

If what Rawle believed were actually true, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. Rawle also quotes Vattel and the Law of Nations in the book, but fails to explain why he doesn't prescribe to Vattel's definition of natural-born citizens. In the end, Rawle's opinion is overruled by a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court opinion in Minor v. Happersett.

[Las Vegas Ron]

William Rawle

Rawle and his family were British sympathizers.

Why on earth would you quote him or his works?

[philman_36]

Don't be deceptive. Place the whole thing and not just the snippet that supports after-birthers. The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

Context is everything.