I have discovered that you cannot reason with people who have an agenda and these birthers certainly have an agenda. For the life of them they cannot see that they are adding things to the Constitution and the law that isn’t there and never was there. They subvert the constitution yet consider themselves conservatives. They can’t get over that citizen parent thing and even when they find such mention they subvert the meaning - as in Minor v. Happersett. Another thing I discovered, never raise more than one question at a time because you’ll never get an answer.
But, for the rest of us, here are a few quotes (there are many more by the way) from the Congressional Globe circa 1860’s) that clearly define NBC and totally cause the birther movement to FAIL:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)
“The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied, it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the “natural-born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to raceor color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truthso old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection.” Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)
“It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).
“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone ... Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision - of course they made none - for the naturalization of natural born citizens.... Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration....” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born....I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Well, one sentence of his words at least.
They are either completely ignorant of or ignore Vattel when they make arguments that McCain is not a natural born citizen.
Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. @2212 (1869) (first column, lower left)
I can't seem to find your second quote "Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)" in the Congressional Globe.
Here is @page 96 of The Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 3rd Session
Perhaps your page number is wrong. Any help appreciated.
I did, however, find the quote attributed to one Attorney General Bates @Opinion of Attorney General Bates on citizenship (page 12, second paragraph)
Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. @1117 (first column, 1/2 down)
Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. @570 (first column, 1/2 down)
Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. @575 (1872) (middle column bottom...starts in the middle of the next to last paragraph)
For anyone wishing to check the source see here... @Congressional Globe Debates and Proceedings, 1833-1873
I trust the words of Thomas Paine from two years after ratification over your words from 221 years later.
Paine was not a Framer, but he wrote of the Framer's intent of NBC as it happened, not centuries later. His book The Rights Of Man stood unchallenged in his claims that natural-born citizens were not half-foreigners, but people with full natural connection with the country.
Ignore Paine's contemporary words at the expense of your own credibility.
What I would like know is why, in Happerett, when the Supreme Court said they had to look elsewhere, they failed to look at Paine in The Rights Of Man. Next to the Federalist Papers, Paine's comparison of the governments of England, France, and the United States is the clearest documentation of the intent of the Framers from the time and in the plain language of the time.
Ignoring Paine's chronicles is like saying that the Washington Post is not a credible chronicler of government today.
-PJ
Only a few hard-core Birthers are left around. There are a few casual Birthers still, but they'll continue to disappear.