Posted on 08/29/2023 4:56:41 PM PDT by RandFan
I prefer not to rely upon the arguments of any Freeper in this regard, but the words and decisions of the founding generation.
In 1814, the SCOTUS heard a case known as the Venus Merchantman case. Among other issues, it concerned itself with the impressment of US merchant sailors by the British Royal Navy into their service on the high seas. That SCOTUS, ALL of whom being members of the founding generation defined what a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was by quoting the entire 212th paragraph of Emmerich De Vatel’s Law of Nations, which was considered to be THE treatise on international law and was referred to regularly by statesmen at the time. That definition, which was incorporated into the majority opinion authored by Justice Livingston follows:
Quote of section 212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758:
Ҥ 212 - Citizens and Natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to
this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents
who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and
succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what
it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen,
on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The
country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens
merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of
discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they
were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of
a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of
his birth, and not his country. “
Note that the above reference was made in 1804, 64 years before the adoption of the 14th amendment, which makes no reference to, nor does it modify Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the constitution, no matter what the original intent might have been. The framers of the constitution were patriarchs, who believed that the citizenship status of the children followed that of the father. It is clear that they were concerned with undue foreign influence upon the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
To believe that the framers would have accepted that a person born a British subject, (as Obama himself admitted to being owing to his FATHER) when they had to exempt themselves with the grandfather exemption in clause 5 of Section 2 in order to be POTUS eligible, beggars belief and logic. Subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS in Minor vs Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US only bolster this conclusion.
Seems they where in love with trump in 16. That worked out ok for us. But blew up in their face.
Yahoo/Daily Beast it doesn’t get any worse
academics? most are morons ...
hahaha Sure she is. rofl
One interpretation of the Constitution has been consistent from 1789 to present.
The other interpretation was borrowed from European countries that have tradition, no real constitution.
It is funny seeing FReepers repeat UnAmerican Europeans arguments as if they are relevant in the US.
Nimarata Randhawa(Nikki Haley)
Is not a threat to Trump.
LOL
On what planet?
In her dreams.
Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants.
They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.
These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures.
But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?
If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are intitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements. I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expence in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but, in the mean time, they will teach us something we do not know.
SOURCE
I have for several years considered THIS WEBSITE the most complete discussion on Natural Born Citizenship.
The problem with discussing this subject with 'regular people' is that the language used by the Founders is intimidating and confusing to 'public school graduates' who graduated in the 1970s and later, and the wordings of Court decisions on the topic after about 1840 INTENTIONALLY made confusing, or intentionally WRONG to confuse 'regular people'.
I didn’t like the way she started off with a sexist joke.
Hey, fellow Greenwald fan, I watched that this AM and that’s where I got that information!
Nikki Harpy?
An increase in support from 2 to 7 percent is barely movement outside of the margin of error and is still single digit support, even if it “more than tripled.”
This is a ridiculous article.
If she were a real threat to President Trump, she’d be dealing with the Secret Service, up front and personal.
She fighting for the same voters supporting Ronnie, Christie, Pence, and Asa.
Riiiiiight. LOL.
I could not agree more. Much of this furor has to do with the abysmal state of modern education, particularly with regard to objective analytical and epistemological reasoning. Too much of the political and cultural discourse often devolves into vapid sloganeering and emotional diatribe.
But the cultural marxists amongst us want things to be that way, to make the populace more amenable to their demagoguery, totalitarian agenda, and their ultimate ascendancy to untrammeled power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.