“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”— James Madison, May 22, 1789 from the floor of the House of Representatives
Madison’s Papers 12:179—82
Just a regurgitated quote mined, cut & paste taken entirely out of context. The issue at hand was the citizenship of one Mr Smith. Madison started out:
I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.
Then he goes on:
I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.
What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.
So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.
As far as Scalia, another mine quote..he said it requires ‘jus soli’. Stating something as a requirement does not make a complete definition. Scalia was referring to Ms Davis's argument that a child born to 2 citizen parents abroad could be deemed NBC for constitutional purposes:
Ms Davis: I think it's... I think it's totally clear that jus sanguinis citizenship has a different history than naturalized citizenship and has traditionally by this Court as well as by Congress been treated differently.
Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship? I mean, isn't it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England? They did not want that. They wanted natural born Americans.
UH-EHM JAMESE...Scalia just said that children of Englishmen born in the USA ARE NOT natural born citizens.
Ms Davis: Yes, by the same token...
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn't it?
Ms Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can't apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe. I'm just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution. I don't think you're disagreeing. It requires jus soli, doesn't it?
Ms Davis: No, Your Honor, I do disagree with that. I believe that it encompasses jus sanguinis citizenship.
Ms Davis believes NBC requires ONLY jus sanguinis. Scalia agreed that it includes jus sanguinis, but he also believes that in addition to ,it also requires ‘jus soli’. As noted above, Scalia clearly stated that children born to foreigner/alien fathers were NOT natural born citizens. So what does this say for McCaint as Scalia clearly also believes that children born abroad are NOT NBC for constitutional purposes.
I have said this before and I will say it again and then I am done with this crap because none of you so-called “forgery” experts have the first clue about what you are saying. Furthermore, miss tickly sounds like something that comes in a plain wrapper so the recipient won’t be embarrassed...unlike polarik who simply showed up as a disruptor with no wrapper at all.
The WHOLE forgery scenario is BOGUS to the hilt. It was meant to distract and obfuscate the truth, and those who have become insulting, belittling, and fanatical about it keep walking us away from the real truth and I wonder why.
hussein’s COLB is NOT a forgery and it never was. It did NOT HAVE to be.
It is genuine but NOT LEGITIMATE! Do you understand the difference, miss t?
Let me ‘splain dis in plain engrish fo’ ya!
Hawaii issues COLBs on selfsworn affidavits. hussein has/had several COLBs which are NOW SEALED. At the very least, his long form original, which was sealed when Soetoto adopted him; his adoptive COLB which was sealed when he reverted to obama.
This COLB was applied for and attested to by obama himself who swore in an affidavit that he was being truthful...and perhaps sworn to by his grandmother as well. It was done for political purposes and THAT is why his father’s race is listed as african.
Hawaii then issued the document based on his affirmation, and the whole forgery thing was started by LIBERALS LIKE Berg on cahoots with polarik who would have gone straight to frikkin jail if he had actually appeared in open court as an “expert witness.”
YOU have no right to demand or otherwise expect ANYTHING from Danae. Who the hell do you think you are? WHY are you trying to keep this bogus distraction going by attacking anyone on this forum in such an unseeemly and vulgar fashion?
The COLB IS NOT A FORGERY, BUT IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE. IT IS A FRAUD, NOT A FORGERY!!! CAN YOU HEAR ME???????????
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS RUNNING ON THIS. HELLO?
I want to thank Patlin for providing additional context for James Madison’s position on jus soli citizenship. What Patlin has added makes my point even stronger.
Justice Scalia never once mentioned “Jus Sanguinis” in his discussion of the requirements for natural born citizenship. ONLY the plaintiff’s attorney, Ms. Davis mentioned “jus Sanguinis.”
Here’s a link to a transcript of the entire oral argument.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument
Eight appeals of Obama eligibility lawsuits have reached the Supreme Court, none of them have been granted the privilege to be heard before the full Court.