Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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.”

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=037/llsp037.db&recNum=15

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.


188 posted on 04/05/2011 7:28:51 PM PDT by mystylplx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: mystylplx

Not true.

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:”


189 posted on 05/12/2011 2:56:16 PM PDT by djf ("Life is never fair...And perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not." Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]

To: mystylplx
"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."

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.

191 posted on 01/31/2012 4:36:02 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson