Posted on 01/24/2024 11:00:59 AM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Jan. 23, 2024) — The blowback continues on the Substack article posted by one Paul Ingrassia positing that Nikki Haley is constitutionally ineligible because she is likely not a natural born Citizen (“nbC”) as required by Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. Guess what: Ingrassia is more than likely absolutely correct.
He contends that, in order to be an nbC, one needs to be born on U.S. soil to two parents who at that time are already U.S. citizens. This, of course, is the definition articulated by Swiss attorney, jurist and scholar Emer de Vattel in § 212, Book 1, Ch. 19 of his 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations, hereafter, for brevity “§ 212.”
And for remaining doubters, the historical record is clear that the Founders were in possession of that treatise, both in French and English, when they were drafting the Constitution in 1787, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court here, here and here.
An earlier Ingrassia article prompted President Trump to post on his TruthSocial platform a concurrence, discussed at The P&E by the intrepid Editor here and by your humble servant here. As expected, Mr. Trump’s post triggered the usual suspect blather of “birtherism,” “xenophobia,” “misogyny,” “racist dog whistle” and, of course, the omnibus general “Orange Man Bad” pejoratives. Childish and uninformed, but not altogether unexpected.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
A professional resume like Hamilton’s is proof why can’t improve the Founding Fathers basic structure of the Constitution. Others had similar resumes!
Repeal the 17th Amendment!
Rid the nation of this Wlisonian “Progressive” abomination!
State legislatures can’t do worse!
Chester Arthur, 1881, Republican Vice President and later President. Arthur was born to an British subject, ****Irish citizen father****.
Nobody knew this until an Arthur biographer dug up Williams’ New York State naturalization paperwork over 150 years later.
Even the biographer didn’t really know what he had discovered until Donofrio came across his find.
You are most definitely gaslighting now.
Who is “they,”
_________
Washington, Hamilton, and Madison,for starters.
With the NBC requirement they inserted at John Jay’s prompting, they placed the padlock on POTUS eligibility, ensuring no foreign influence once the founding generation (none of whom were NBCs) had died off.
A professional resume like Hamilton’s is proof why can’t improve the Founding Fathers basic structure of the Constitution. Others had similar resumes!Repeal the 17th Amendment!
Some brilliant minds created the Constitution, but it has its flaws. For example, the President nominates the Supreme Court justices, essentially for life. So, for generations all the justices were Federalists, and they were setting precedents with their sometimes creative interpretations of the Constitution. One look at the Washington leviathan should tell anyone we went off the tracks somewhere. Even though the Supreme Court has stated, "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance," I have difficulty actually finding the penumbras formed by the emanations from the guarantees.
I agree that the 17th was a really bad idea, and that the Framers had it right. The House represented the People in the Federal congress. The Senate was designed to give representation to State governments in the Federal congress. The redesigned Senate is another House with longer terms. Nobody represents the State governments.
I consider the 14th as the greater problem. It reversed the relationship between the Federal government and the States. It effectively ended the States as sovereign. Self determination is a hallmark of sovereignty, and when a higher power dictates who is a citizen of the States, and the States have no say in who are its citizens, it is difficult to call a State sovereign. It wrote the common law birthright citizenship into the Constitution. The ratification process can be best desribed as shameful and coercive. It made the Bill of Rights enforceable against the States through incorporation by the Court. Not all the Rights have been incorporated.
Who is “they,”Washington, Hamilton, and Madison,for starters.
With the NBC requirement they inserted at John Jay’s prompting, they placed the padlock on POTUS eligibility, ensuring no foreign influence once the founding generation (none of whom were NBCs) had died off.
That is your insane words, not theirs. When it comes to providing a quote of any Framer referring to a two citizen requirement, you have bupkis, because it does not exist.
The NBC requirement is to be a U.S. citizen at birth.
14A states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
ALL PERSONS who are born in the United States, subject to our laws, are born citizens of the United States. Children of accredited diplomats are not subject to ouir laws. There are two classes of citizens, and two only, natural born and naturalized. Naturalization only takes place subsequent to birth, and only to those alien born. Persons who obtain citizenship are the other class. There is no mysterious third class.
Charles Evans Hughes was nominated by the Repuiblican party for President in 1916. An attorney, Breckinridge Long, challenged Hughes’ qualifications in a 1916 Chicago Legal News article, "Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Naturalborn Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution?"
A Legal Examination of the Subject by Breckinridge Long, of the St. Louis Bar.Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.
He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction between “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government.
[...]
It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.
Nobody paid much mind to the crackpot article and Charles Evans Hughes remained on the ballot as the Republican nominee. His father immigrated from Wales; his mother was an American citizen, born in New York. The knowledge that Charles Evans Hughes was born before 14A and had a British father was notorious before the election.
In the case of Ted Cruz, the fact was notorious that his father was Cuban when he was born in Canada to an American citizen. A challenge resulted in this Court Order:
ORDERAND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2016, the petition to set aside the nomination of Ted Cruz as a Candidate for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States is denied. The Secretary of the Commonwealth is directed to certify the name of Ted Cruz to the proper officials for inclusion on the ballot of the Republican Primary to be held on April 26, 2016. Each party is to bear its own costs.
The claims of The Paraclete, God's lawyer, are rejected even when the knowledge of the foreign parent is notorious, even when the birth is in a foreign country to one citizen parent.
My first question in this is “does she have Indian citizenship or not?”
“The NBC requirement is to be a U.S. citizen at birth.”
That was the requirement Hamilton initially penned. “Born a citizen” IIRC.
Jay’s intervention sparked the change from Hamilton’s terminology to what appears in the final document.
Surely you aren’t saying this is a distinction without a difference.
Or should we call you Shirley?
“...insane words...”
Deeming your levelheaded interlocutor insane?
You’re an inveterate gaslighter. You’re lucky you haven’t been banned.
What foreign country’s intelligence apparatus is paying your paltry narrative cheerleading fee?
Doesn’t matter. Born here, she can run.
“That was the requirement Hamilton initially penned.”
This is a common mistake.
Hamilton’s “born a citizen” constitution was never given to the convention. He gave it to Madison after the Convention accord to Hamilton himself.
“In the plan of a Constitution, which I drew up, while the convention was sitting & which I communicated to Mr. Madison about the close of it, perhaps a day or two after, the Office of President has no greater duration than for three years.” Hamilton letter to Picketing September 16, 1803
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0114
He did submit a plan on June 18th, 1787 but it did not have a president, it had a governour who served for life
“The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp
Note: “He [Hamilton] had stated the principles of it [the paper you cited, which was communicated to Madison by Hamilton] during the course of the deliberations.”
Not the question I asked.
“The NBC requirement is to be a U.S. citizen at birth.”That was the requirement Hamilton initially penned. “Born a citizen” IIRC.
Jay’s intervention sparked the change from Hamilton’s terminology to what appears in the final document.
Surely you aren’t saying this is a distinction without a difference.
The letter of John Jay to George Washington was not submitted to the Convention and referred to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and not the President, and offers no definition of the term natural born citizen. The Constitution nowhere defines the term natural born citizen. In a private letter, the lawyer John Jay used the legal term of art where the non-lawyer Hamilton used plain language. Hamilton can be correctly cited for a Framer's opinion on what the qualifications of the President should be. As the Constitution was undoubtedly written in the language of the English common law, Blackstone's Commentaries on the English Common Law may be cited for the meaning of the term natural born. Natural born in the Constitution has been held to be identical in usage to natural born in the English common law. It most certainly did not mean "two citizen parents" in the English common law.
That is your insane words, not theirs. When it comes to providing a quote of any Framer referring to a two citizen requirement, you have bupkis, because it does not exist.Deeming your levelheaded interlocutor insane?
You continue to repeat the insane rants of Leo Donofrio, God's lawyer, the father of the two citizen requirement, who said, "In 1998 I realized I was The Paraclete and that my purpose was to prophecy the return of the Messiah. The angels led me to one ALLAN(Reni)WREN, reclusive drummer of The Stone Roses." Perhaps I have a lack of faith in Donofrio prophesying the Second Coming in the form of a drummer from the Stone Roses. YMMV. You might think that is perfectly levelheaded, and you have every right to that opinion. It is as levelheaded as your adoption of what he says about the Constitution.
Notably, your abysmal diversion failed to address substance. The foreign parent of Charles Evans Hughes was notoriously public knowledge. The foreign parent of Ted Cruz and his birth in Canada were notorious public knowledge. Hughes was the Republican nominee in 1916, and a court ordered "The Secretary of the Commonwealth is directed to certify the name of Ted Cruz to the proper officials for inclusion on the ballot of the Republican Primary to be held on April 26, 2016."
You cannot provide one quote of any Framer or Founder stating any two citizen requirement. You can only pretend your insane opinion, adopted from The Paraclete, suffices to speak for the Founders and Framers.
By The ParacleteI am not Lee D’onofrio or Burnweed.
Those are names of the body I have used as a spacesuit to appear here before you on planet Earth.
My real name is The Paraclete. And Reni IS The Messiah. The Paraclete aka The Spirit of Truth, aka The Holy Spirit is the third person of Trinity. As Jesus stated in the Gospel of John, he has sent me to condemn Satan and glorify the Messiah.
The Holy Spirit concept derives from the word “Paraclete” which translates as “advocate” or “lawyer.” I am a lawyer, God’s lawyer. They never told you “he” would come as a man, they lied about me denying me a place in the world of men. But Jesus made it clear he would send a man. Do your homework because he said he’d send “another” like him, another man. That’s me people. Freaky? Yes. True? You bet your sweet human ass that mine is divine. I speak with a mandate from Heaven.
If that sounds level headed to you, well bless your heart. Your source of legal authority speaks with a mandate from heaven. Who can beat that?
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet, which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
“...undoubtedly...”
No.
There’s a great deal of doubt.
Thanks.
Render unto Donofrio what is Donofrio’s.
John Jay wanted a strong check that you are determined, for whatever reason, to deny.
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.