Replies

Speaking of Rawle, let's look at the WHOLE paragraph and not just a snippet from the middle of it!

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 be 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 anatural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

Sorry, Jeff, but even Rawle, on a more thorough reading, doesn't support your position.

Key points...at the time the Constitution was adopted and established as to us.

His whole spiel was about grandfathering in people, including himself apparently, at the time the Constitution was adopted!

Good try, but that dog don't hunt!

Your post is a great example of how far people like you will go to twist and misrepresent even the clearest of words from our history and law to push your silly theory.

Yes, I've read Rawle, in context. And the context is a general exposition of the entire Constitution, for the entire populace of the United States.

To claim that when he said "us," he was referring to "grandfathering" people in who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is just downright silly. Especially when he speaks expressly of those who are BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.

Thanks for posting. It's a great illustration that there's simply nothing that you people won't try to twist.

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.