Replies

I’m not going to fish through your posts. You show where in the Constitution a foreign born child of parental US citizenship is declared to be a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen”.

This is what a conversation with a birther inevitably comes down to.

1. A flat refusal to accept the evidence.

This is usually expressed with something like, "I'm not going to fish through your posts," or "I'm not going to address the rest of your crap," or "I'm not going to read your crap."

2. A demand that must be met, otherwise the birther is "right." It's better if this is an impossible demand.

For example, "You show where in the Constitution a foreign born child of parental US citizenship is declared to be a 'natural born citizen' or a 'citizen'."

Never mind that the birther can't show where in the Constitution (or anywhere else, for that matter) that it says a "natural born citizen" is "someone born on US soil of two citizen parents." If the non-birther doesn't meet the birther's impossible demand, why then, he must be "wrong."

I refer people who aren't completely committed birthers back to the evidence. Bayard writing in 1834, with the approval of Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Story, Chancellor Kent and other experts in the law, was crystal clear that you didn't have to be born in the United States in order to be a "natural born citizen."

That's clear, it's explicit, and it had the support of a near Who's-Who of our top early legal experts.

On the other side, we have an equally clear proclamation from one of our other top early legal experts: Rawle. You didn't have to have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, either, as long as you were born in the United States.

Absolutely, crystal clear.

Who were our other great early legal experts? Well, St. George Tucker, and maybe Zephaniah Swift, and maybe Chancellor Sandford of New York.

Both Tucker and Swift said, generally, that natural born citizens were those born in a State. Sandford said that if someone was born in the US of alien parents, could there be any doubt that person was eligible to be President? No.

And we have virtually exhausted the list of top legal experts in the early United States.

So the birther thing is done, to anyone who has the ability to recognize truth. The opinion of our top early legal experts is literally unanimous against it.

In post 551 you assert that Bayard's claim that “it is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen’” relied upon "The Constitution and the rule of the common law."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3045713/posts?page=551#551

In post 552 I asked

Where in the Constitution is a foreign born child of parental US citizenship declared to be a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen”?

Your reply in 553, "I guess you haven't been paying attention. I recommend you go back and carefully read all of my posts in this thread."

And now you post this:

This is what a conversation with a birther inevitably comes down to.
1. A flat refusal to accept the evidence.
This is usually expressed with something like, "I'm not going to fish through your posts," or "I'm not going to address the rest of your crap," or "I'm not going to read your crap."

Which is an obvious attempt to deflect from your inability to substantiate your claim.

The fact is that the Constitution nowhere declares a foreign born child of parental US citizenship to be a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen”. The foreign born children of parental US citizenship are declared by the Naturalization Act of 1790 to be "natural born citizen", and by the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, to be "citizen".

We all know this to be true. Why do you deny such a simple fact and instead resort to ad hominem attacks?

The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.

The distinguishing characteristic was parental US citizenship.

Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.

Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further “natural born citizens”?

Are we to conclude that other children born with parental US citizenship - those who were not “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States”, those born within the United States - are “natural born citizens”?

Or are these other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than “natural born citizens”? Why? Was it necessary that they be “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to be “natural born citizens”?

Who are the post 1795 natural born citizens?

The reasonable conclusion is that those born within the United States with parental US citizenship are “natural born citizens”.