Skip to comments.Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
Posted on 04/02/2010 2:13:33 PM PDT by rxsid
click here to read article
I wish Obama wasn't President and I'm ready to rank him as the worst President in history, but the idea that he could be removed from office because some legal experts show that he doesn't meet the 1787 meaning of "natural born citizen" is beyond the realm of possibility. The public thinks he's a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Hawaii (whether or not that's really where he was born), and he definitely got a majority of the electoral votes in 2008. He'd have to do something much worse than the Watergate coverup to be impeached and removed. Michael Steele is bent on ensuring the Democrats keep control of Congress so he won't have to worry about a Republican majority next year. We are stuck with him.
So, how many of you stalwart Constitutional scholars knowingly voted for an ineligible candidate (John McCain) in 2008?
Yeah, scared to death of a “losing, issue”, go figure.
Do you know of a pdf of this resolution? It has been removed from the Leahy website, thanks.
Usurpation bump to the top!
Ramsays arguments were rejected by the first Congress. The opposition debate was lead by James Madison, who said in response to Ramsay, “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.”
Oops. That should pretty well settle that. Those who actually wrote the Constitution rejected the notion that citizen parents were required to be a natural born citizen.
In fact one of the first laws passed by Congress said... “And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as CITIZENS of the United States.” and then goes on... “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of
the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship SHALL NOT descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”
"Oops. That should pretty well settle that. Those who actually wrote the Constitution rejected the notion that citizen parents were required to be a natural born citizen."
Complete Obot disinformation.
The case was about the eligibility of William Loughton Smith to hold his newly won seat (1788) in congress. David Ramsay, his opponent, contended that Smith did not meet the seven years a citizen requirement for congressmen as written in the Constitution.
In a nutshell:
Smith (b. 1758) was sent to England by his father Benjamin in 1770 at the age of 12 years. Later that same year, his father died, a British subject, six years prior to the Declaration of Independence. Smith's mother died in 1760. William Smith did not return to America until 1783, after the bloody fight for our freedom was finished.
Ramsay basically asserted correctly that Smith's father Benjamin could not have passed U.S. Citizenship to his son as he died six years prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
I believe Mr. Jackson in reply to Mr. Madison's argument, said it best:
The case was decided by vote in committee in favor of Smith, with the objections of Mr. Jackson as noted above. Political considerations seem to have trumped reason in this case, as there is no possible way that Smith could have been considered a U.S. Citizen prior to the year 1783, when he arrived in the newly created United States as a young man in his twenties.
Thanks for such a delightful kick of the ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.