ONCE AGAIN YOU(MR ROGERS) EDITS & PARSES MY POSTS AS WELL KENT'S QUOTES FROM THEIR ORIGINAL FORM IN ORDER TO OBSFUCATE THE THE TRUTH.
...ambitious foreigners cannot ; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome… (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Part II: Of the Government and the Jurisprudence of the United States, 1826)
So Mr Rogers, what part of this:
...as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added,...a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives
Do you not understand?... Kent clearly states here that natural does not equate to native as birth was not a requirement to being a native at the signing of the constitution:
(1.) Natives . . . If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.
So, when defining original intent, birth was NOT a requisite for being classified as a Native.
As Morse stated in 1904:
“the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite...If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”;”
So while certain individuals MAY have used native in place of natural, one must look to which definition of native they were using, they are not interchangeable and are very distinct as Kent has shown. The Indians were all native-born, yet they were not all citizens. Get the Picture?
“Kent clearly states here that natural does not equate to native as birth was not a requirement to being a native at the signing of the constitution:”
Please try to read some history, or even the rest of the Constitution. The ‘grandfather clause’ allowed anyone who was a subject of the American colonies, and who had helped the rebellion, to automatically become a ‘natural born citizen’, because they had given birth to the nation, instead of the nation giving birth to them. That only applied to those alive at the signing of the Constitution.
“So, when defining original intent, birth was NOT a requisite for being classified as a Native.”
Again, incorrect. Those who helped give birth to the nation were grandfathered in. Those who followed, not having participated in the nation’s birth, would need to be born in the nation. And while they were not natives, they were considered as such - per Kent’s words.
“The Indians were all native-born, yet they were not all citizens.”
The Indians were considered separate nations leaving in the US per treaties with them. And at the time the Constitution was written, they held the vast majority of the land...