I say: Why are you blind to the quotations I put in my post?Instead of answering my question, you choose to parry with a question of your own. Therefore, I will answer your question and then put words in your mouth for you.
The question is still about original intent of the natural-born clause. The Congressmen that you quoted gave their opinions in 1866, 1869, and 1872. Paine, a Founder, wrote contemporaneously about the Constitution in 1791.
You earlier said, "As far as I know Paine had no direct input into the Constitution. While I respect him, he had opinions just like everyone else." I give Paine's interpretation of original intent more weight, given that he's a Founder who was there at the time. His opinions, along with Adams', Franklin's, and Jefferson's, were original Founding opinions, not historical interpretations of original intent.
Regarding Paine's comparisons vs, it's neglect later on during natural-born debates, I can only surmise that it was forgotten history, that is, that the various Congressmen, law clerks, and Justices failed to recall his statements on the American Constitution. The Rights Of Man was not written to be a chronicle of the Constitution (like the Federalist Papers), it was written to support the French in their own Revolution. Paine was tried by England in absentia and sentenced to death over the book because of the things he said about England.
But still, even if its purpose was not to define the Constitution, Paine's comparison in the book to European forms of government are still chronicles of the Framers' original intent by a Founding Father, and should be recognized as such. It should be given the same Constitutional relevence as Jefferson's letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson's letter has become the source of "wall of separation between church and state," even though Jefferson was not a Framer of the Constitution either.
To the quotes themselves. What we will see is a mixing of the debate of citizenry vs. the added requirement for being president. I will argue that "natural-born" is not a definition of citizen, but a further requirement (akin to age and residency) that is added to being a citizen, that is, being a citizen of two citizen parents. The intent is not to define a new category of citizenship, but to define a criterion of presidency that is applied to citizens seeking the office. This is what Paine states.
John Bingham: With all due respect to Rep. Bingham, it reads like typical Congressional hyperbole in defense of his bill. Language like "Who does not know..." and later "There is no one can hesitate a moment about it who..." is typical debate rhetoric intended to put the opposer on the defensive. The fact that he was the principle author of the 14th amendment, which was ratified just the year before this quote, reinforces my opinion that he was flaunting his success.
The Bingham quote does support my point about Paine's quote in that Bingham said the above in debate about women's suffrage, not citizenship. Paine defined natural-born in debate about the French Revolution, not the Constitution. Why do you accept Bingham's incidental quote, but not Paine's?
Senator Morrill: I do not know the amendment being debated, but it is similar in vein to Rep. Bingham's. The discussion is if citizenry and not presidential criteria, and is incidental to the core amendment being debated.
Senator Trumbill: Here we get to a remark about presidential criteria, but it begins dishonestly. "...and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen." He substitutes his own phrase "native-born citizen" in place of the actual Constitutional language "natural-born citizen," and then proceeds from there. That aside, this seems to be a debate about the citizenship status of former slaves, not of presidential criteria.
The debate is about the original intent of the natural-born clause. I say, supported by Thomas Paine, that the natural-born clause is a further criterion, apart from citizenship, to become president. You say that the natural-born clause is a definition of citizenship itself and cannot be separated. You offer quotations regarding citizenship, but not regarding presidential criteria.
We both agree that people born in the United States of single-citizen parents are citizens. We even agree that people born in the United States of two non-citizens are citizens. I do not know if you support legislation removing the "anchor-baby" citizenship, such that tourists can no longer time their travels to the United States to coincided with childbirth in order to birth a United States citizen, but that is not important to this debate.
Do you agree that "natural-born" can be an added criterion that citizens must qualify in order to be president? Not "is a," but "can be?" Or do you, as I suspect, link "natural-born" solely to citizen definition in a way that cannot be separated as an additional qualification to be president apart from citizenship?
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI says that the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land" and "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The "natural-born" clause is a "Thing in the Constitution," and cannot be ignored. It cannot be replaced with the phrase "native-born" and then proceed as if "native-born" is the supreme law of the land.
To reconcile the two, "natural-born" must be seen as an additional criterion to be president that is applied after a candidate passes the citizenship test, as Paine wrote in The Rights Of Man.
-PJ
Requesting permission to cut-and-paste the above from you!
........................................
The four gospels of Christ were written maybe even 100 years after Christ. Does that mean they have no authority? What does time have to do with it?
I will argue that "natural-born" is not a definition of citizen, but a further requirement (akin to age and residency) that is added to being a citizen...
There is no way you can justify the framers adding "a further requirement" to what was normally understood. Two parent citizens would have been mentioned specifically because it was a departure from common knowledge. You are just taking a shot in the dark to support your agenda. No one believes this, not judges, politicians, conservative commentators, me, or millions of others. This is a dumb issue.
Your reasoning is way beyond repair. Tell you what. You believe what you want, I will not try to debate with you. You are entitled to your opinions.