Replies

What, you consider the Marquis De Lafayette's Aid [sic] to be a good authority?

I certainly do. The Marquis de Lafayette served as a served as a Major-General in the Revolutionary War under George Washington. He fought Cornwallis at Yorktown. He was a personal friend of our first SIX Presidents, and is known to have gone and visited them personally. He was declared a natural born citizen of the State of Maryland, so he had damn good reason to know what the term meant. And Lafayette's aide was with by his side as he spent time with several of those Presidents.

So yes. The Marquis de Lafayette, and his aide, were in a damn good position to know exactly what the Founders and Framers meant by "natural born citizen."

This is an interesting thread , but it strikes me as a moot court.

Those like myself, may hold audience to ideas, we neither have experience, nor an education capable of disputing the arguments refined here or those sifted from, the history of the Constitution.

Many, like myself, only grasp dimly, how the constitution extrapolates natural laws and establishes the distinction of right and wrong. Therefor, I ask both of you; a simpler question and hope, both of you will respond with words understandable to a layman and in the fashion, of a sympathetic teacher.

Are we, (I), sovereign? Having rights independent of the will of the state?

This question is meant to flush out the contrast between, independent action and social action.

More to the point, does an individual; (I), have rights which supersede social contracts, or are we; (I), subservient to a (State)?

I believe this question relates directly to the question of Presidential eligibility. It is my primitive understanding that the act of voting, is the transference of authority to an agent, in this case the executive branch, headed by the President. The President derives his authority from a collection of individual sovereign citizen.

Therefor, the authority of that agent, the (POTUS) is derived from a true sovereign, inviolately, established in a the Constitution, as having a defined, criteria; One of those criteria is being, a natural born citizen.

Am I to believe that, I, a sovereign citizen, should not be included in the determination of what constitutes that meaning?

The Constitution is written in relatively simple language and can be understood by contemporary citizens, it does not strike me as a code to be deciphered by a sibyl, but plainly spoken to those, like myself, who wish to participate in self-governance.

The authority derived from the sovereign is vested in POTUS, and is in dispute by many sovereigns, including (myself), whom rest their certainty of self-governence on the words of the Constitution, its meaning and history which still resinates in a common vernacularly.

Whom, do you believe should be entrusted to make decisions regarding the epistemology of the words in the constitution? And whom do you believe, inherit those rights which constitute its form? Whom do the consequences of these ideas mostly effect, if not ourselves?

I beg your pardon, for my lack of clarity, I hope you can see through the fog of language and address my concerns.

It’s no mystery that the founders considered those persons who fought on the side of the U.S. against Great Britain in the Revolution would be “considered as” natural-born citizens. It’s the whole reason for the clauses in Article II “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” and “and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States” ... the 14 years represented the period of time between 1776 and 1789 when the Constituton was adopted ... time that was spent untangling from the British monarchy.

I certainly do. The Marquis de Lafayette served as a served as a Major-General in the Revolutionary War under George Washington. He fought Cornwallis at Yorktown.

So no doubt by this standard, Baron von Steuben is a constitutional expert? Do you honestly expect anyone to accept this kind of crap? His MILITARY accomplishments are irrelevant to the creation of article II.

He was a personal friend of our first SIX Presidents, and is known to have gone and visited them personally.

Martha Washington had SEX with George, but that doesn't make her a Constitutional expert.

He was declared a natural born citizen of the State of Maryland, so he had damn good reason to know what the term meant.

Glad you brought that up. Maryland DEEMED him to be a "natural born citizen" and "his heirs male forever." Nothing in there about needing to be born anywhere. The status (according to the legislature of Maryland) would pass by Jus Sanguinus descent.

It still doesn't make his aide knowledgable regarding "natural citizen."

And Lafayette's aide was with by his side as he spent time with several of those Presidents.

And certainly all they talked about was the meaning of "natural citizen." Your theory that Lafayette's Aide is an "authority" is utterly ridiculous, but it is the sort of straw you usually grasp.