Replies

I'm posting the words of Thomas Paine, a Founder, if not a Framer. In 1791, he wrote in The Rights Of Man about the origins of nations, and a comparison of the United States, France, and England, in terms of the authority of those governments vs. the rights of its citizens.

From The Rights of Man, Applying Principle to Practice, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Part 2 of 2:

If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.
In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.

Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.

Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"

It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."

Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.

Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.

Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.

Having reread it yesterday, I wonder why the SCOTUS never referred to it when they felt challenged to "look elsewhere" for the meaning of natural-born citizen. The portion I cited makes it clear that the Natural-Born clause was intended to keep "half-foreigners" from becoming president, and only allow those with "full natural connection with the country" to the highest office. Someone who reads that entire chapter that I excerpted from cannot help but see that the Framers were very well aware of what the governments of England and France were like, due to centuries of the politics of inter-marriage between royal familes and its impact on divided loyalties amongst the citizens.

-PJ

Thanks for reposting this. It’s Eligibility dynamite, and cannot be posted often enough.

At the same time, I have to ask why it takes Paine to inject a note of sanity into this debate? Liberals I can understand. All they ever cared about was protecting Obama, and no claim is too absurd for them to make on his behalf. I’ve read the comments they make about him. It’s scary/creepy, how worshipful they are. The crime of selling the USA out to our worst enemies is a pleasant one for Obots, if it means validating their Number One Hero. Besides, they *want* to ‘fundamentally change’ the USA, so it’s all good for them.

But conservatives??? How on earth have they bought into this ‘dirt only’ twaddle??? It’s not merely insanity—it’s brainless insanity.

Try this. Have an American gal go to China and give birth. Bring the baby back to the USA and raise/indoctrinate him/her to hate, w a burning, unquenchable passion, not only communism but the Chinese people themselves. In due time send the born-on-Chinese-soil individual back to China and let him/her live there a couple of decades.

Then say to the Chinese leaders, ‘This is a natural born Chinese citizen; accept him/or into the highest ranks of your government.’

Ha ha. Oh yes, they will welcome this ‘NBC’ w open arms. They will be delighted to establish him or her in the upper echelons of Chinese power brokerage.

An Iranian was quoted recently scoffing at the idea that being born on Iranian soil makes a person an Iranian. This is because, dark and twisted as Islam is, it nevertheless leaves a person free to reject pure, mindnumbingly stupid twaddle, at least when it comes to Natural Born Iranian Citizenship.

Only in America, where liberals rule and have ruled for so many decades, is this kind and level of stupidity accepted. Liberals salivate at the idea of putting one of America’s most rabid half-foreign enemies [i.e.: Barack Hussein Obama] in a position to destroy the Republic as we know it, and as the Framers established it. Anybody w any kind of grasp of modern liberalism knows this.

But why would conservatives jump onboard? How can they look in the mirror and claim they’re seeing the face of a sane individual??? They believe a couple of Red Chinese can birth a Natural Born American Citizen, simply by arranging for the child to be born on a particular patch of dirt. That is not mere stupidity—it is psychotic.

I have said before and I say it again, it can only be explained by a desire to look smart and sophisticated in the eyes of liberals. I.e.: some conservatives are so intellectually insecure, they’re willing to embrace bizarrely stupid ideas, merely so as to be able to say, ‘I’m not one of those wingnut birthers’.

If that is not the explanation, then what is it? I ask because I am trying to understand. Some of my fellow conservatives embrace a suicidal, uber-modern-lib/Obot-inspired ‘interpretation’ of NBC.

Why???