Yes they are there in the .pdf files. The last two are the indices to the archived files in Washington.
“Yes they are there in the .pdf files”
Okay. I went back and re-read your comments and the contents of your linked items.
I finally saw where you extracted the particular Marshall quote, and went through more carefully the arguments of the 1969 document.
The document is essentially an argument for why George Romney is not eligible to be president since he was born abroad.
While the document does contain a fairly thorough examination of the various arguments, it oversimplifies some of them, including mine which addresses the 1790 law.
The document essentially says the 1790 law was simultaneously a mistake (copying the wrong text of the wrong British law) AND a practically meaningless statement when it comes to the term “natural born citizen”. The paper claims both of these self-contradictory opinions at once. Reminds me of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland who claimed, “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”.
The document also uses flawed logic:
“The fact is, however, that the blood relationship had nothing whatsoever to do with the requirement, and the sole basis for the requirement was place of birth. This is demonstrated from the notes of Mr. James Madison, made on the spot, at the Constitutional Convention and reported in Bancroft’s History of the Constitution showing that the initial proposal of the Committee of Detail called for 21 years of inhabitance (permanent residence) which relates solely to place and is entirely unrelated to blood. But, objection was made that ‘no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place, i.e., a life time of residence could not properly prepare one of foreign birth. (place again)’ It was then that the Committee of States changed the requirement to call for native birth, as ‘natural-born’ was meant by Blackstone, et al. (place again), but exception was made to those foreigners who were residents at the time of the adoption of the constitution—again place!”
Use your brain to follow the argument. The founders were trying to determine a reasonable requirement for residency. A natural born citizen could be such for his or her entire life but also spend half of his or her life living abroad. They were saying that a “foreigner”, no matter how long his or her residency here, would not be properly qualified. Foreigner, in this context can easily mean born here of foreign parents. It is precisely because PLACE was NOT the primary determination of natural born citizenship that the founders debated this. They said no amount of residency (i.e. PLACE, even including place of birth) could make a foreigner fit for office.
Which were they concerned about in the above instance, US citizens traveling abroad and birthing a child who could later become president, or was it foreigners who birthed children on US soil and could be qualified to be president? Allegiance has more to do with the citizenship AND loyalty of the parents.
Granted, there have been arguments made for more than a century against jus sanguinis as the legal basis for natural born citizenship. My position is that none of the founders objected to the use of the term in the first naturalization act because of their meaning and intent by the term. The idea being floated a generation or more later that it was a mistake or not truly natural born (just deemed such) is a convoluted trick to make the act fit within the predisposed paradigm of the arguer.
There is not one word uttered by a founder against the choice of words in the first act of naturalization. This act proves the founders believed 3 things:
1. natural born citizenship is an issue within the purview of Congress
2. natural born citizenship may be conferred upon children born abroad
3. natural born citizenship is based primarily on the citizenship of the parents rather than the place of birth
All of the arguments to the contrary are convoluted mental backflips to explain away what the founders themselves actually wrote. The actions of the British provide a clear reason why this law needed to be changed as there was a continuing threat by Great Britain to subvert this nation by asserting the rights of the king over US citizens. The founders did not want any natural born citizens to be “Manchurian candidates” by virtue of the control and influence of Great Britain which was a real threat, the proof of which is the war of 1812.
I will give you one point in this argument though. My arguments are based on the founders’ writings, including the Constitution, laws, and letters. It is based on original intent. There are some strong arguments based on court rulings (some mentioned in this paper) which potentially could influence a modern-day ruling on Cruz’s citizenship. So I will admit that the issue remains unresolved practically.
Would the founders, if they could be transported through time to this year, support a Cruz presidency? I doubt it. But not for the natural birth issue. The founders would be too busy preparing for Revolution 2 to bother trying to fix what ails our nation through the belabored and broken political process. The abuses of our current government FAR exceed those of Great Britain that caused the Revolution.