Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Rawle’s stepdad was a Loyalist. And I may have been a bit harsh to DL, as some sources actually say that he was a Loyalist during the Revolution as well. He might have been, due to his stepfather’s influence. But he was barely 17 years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed. And the source that DL quoted stated that Rawle felt a “sense of humiliation over his family’s British sympathies.” So perhaps the bottom line is that we don’t 100% understand all of his feelings on the matter as a teenager. They may well have changed.
Rawle went to England during the War, at age 22, and toured Europe, and after spending two years abroad returned to the United States. By this time the War was certainly winding down, and if Rawle had been a Loyalist before, he certainly doesn’t seem to have been one now. Why would a Loyalist leave England to go to live forever in the United States? Doesn’t make any sense.
One author writes: “Whatever Loyalist tendencies the young Rawle had did not last. After returning from England in 1783, he expressed his commitment to the United States. George Washington even offered to make him attorney general, an offer which Rawle declined. Rawle seemed to have little interest in a career in politics, but he was a strong Federalist.”
So by 1783, it was clear that young Rawle was all in for the United States of America, and he spent the rest of his life here, becoming a respected leader. By 1787 and the summer of the Constitutional Convention, he was obviously quite thick with both George Washington and Ben Franklin.
So Rawle was EXTREMELY well positioned to know exactly what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born citizen.”
I never implied otherwise.
If what you claim was really true; that the children born of U.S. citizen military service members or those of U.S. diplomats and their U.S. citizen spouses while they were honorably serving our country overseas, are not U.S. citizens with ALL the rights that would be otherwise granted to them had they been born while their parents were serving in the very same capacity states side,
I never claimed that. You need to take a class in reading comprehension.
I think a crucial points as to Cruz’s eligibility for POTUSA, not senator, are whether or not the parents were in Canada serving USA interests and in either case the citizenship of both parents.
We have neither. We have United States law. I have no doubt that Vattel influenced the Constitutional Congress to a very great extent but over time our definition of Natural born Citizen has been asserted through practice and SCOTUS decisions/holdings.
Natural law is very logical: a child born in a nation of citizen parents is a Natural born Citizen. No legal statute is required to determine that child’s citizenship.
James Madison was the man who wrote the U.S.Constitution, and during his Presidency he had a very definite belief in what exactly constituted a U.S. citizen: a person born of U.S. citizen parents was therefore a citizen, and just the fact of being born in one of the original thirteen colonies didn’t equal citizenship. This was the definition, in fact, written into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The naturalization of children born to U.S. citizens overseas was dealt with by the very first U.S. congress in 1790. Unfortunately, they got it wrong!
They included in the Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department that Americans born abroad are “natural born” citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. These children were not granted citizenship via that US statute, rather automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. These children were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.
Well, this was not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization and cannot define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization.
If Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it. But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again. Why? Because naturalization of someone’s citizenship, requiring a legal staute, is at odds with natural law.
It took the 14th Amendment AND the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision to cement in place the idea that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States could be a United States citizen at birth no matter the parent’s citizenship.
Yes, natural law is both logical and simple.
The natural law that gave rise to "natural born subject" as well as the later American form "natural born citizen" was simple, and derived from the Bible.
The Bible said that people should be subject to authorities that God had put in place.
England became a Christian country, and adopted this philosophy into their law, extending it slightly to the very logical conclusion that if a person was born into a realm, then he was to be a subject OF that realm, and of the governing authority over it.
Very simple.
And THAT is where we got "natural born subject" (which became "natural born citizen" in the United States), and THAT is why it never mattered whether a person's parents were subjects or citizens or not. Just as long as they themselves were there in obedience to that authority. And if they were there as aliens in amity, with the permission of the King and under his protection, then their children, born in the realm, were natural born subjects OF the realm.
James Madison was the man who wrote the U.S.Constitution, and during his Presidency he had a very definite belief in what exactly constituted a U.S. citizen: a person born of U.S. citizen parents was therefore a citizen, and just the fact of being born in one of the original thirteen colonies didn’t equal citizenship. This was the definition, in fact, written into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Sigh.
Madison said that when it came to allegiance (the kind of allegiance that created citizenship) there were two ways to go: place of birth, or parentage. He said that PLACE OF BIRTH was the MORE CERTAIN of the two, and that it was WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
The naturalization of children born to U.S. citizens overseas was dealt with by the very first U.S. congress in 1790. Unfortunately, they got it wrong!
Yes, our prominent early leaders were all a bunch of goofups, weren't they? I seem to hear this pretty regularly from birthers. Like when DL attacked William Rawle.
It took the 14th Amendment AND the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision to cement in place the idea that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States could be a United States citizen at birth no matter the parent’s citizenship.Only in the case of blacks. By the time of US v Wong Kim Ark, the government had begun to wander from its earlier principles, and the Wong Kim Ark decision brought it back to the way Founders and Framers set things up.
Yeah, I’ve consistently maintained from almost the very beginning of the Obama Citizenship debate that the “intent” of Our Founding Fathers is more important than the legal interpretations of the phrase, “Natural Born.”
Since Our Founding Fathers put the Natural Born Clause in the Constitution to help insure that the President has complete, undivided allegiances to the Citizens of the United States, the true litmus test for who is and who isn’t a Natural Born citizen should always be weighted heavily towards one’s loyalty.
For me, Obama gave up any claim he had to Natural Born citizenship when, having had dual citizenship, he tacitly demonstrated his fealty to his father’s homeland by jetting over to Kenya and inserting himself into Odinga’s 2006 presidential race!
I found that odd since the purpose of Obama’s trip was supposedly to raise awareness for AIDS, nothing else politically, that I am aware of. Yet, there he was, railing against the then current government and helping his buddy Odinga move into power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/world/africa/26obama.html?_r=0
That certainly didn’t fit in with the underlying intent of undivided loyalties when the Founders drafted that Natural Born Clause!
Ergo, NOT Natural Born.
As for Cruz, if he shows himself solely loyal to the Citizens of the United States, then I have no problems extending to him my Natural Born blessings, even though I know, legally, his Born Abroad status is problematic, at best.
Like I keep harping on in this comment, it’s the Framers’ intent of the law that counts the most, not the letter of the law.
I think if more Freepers were to embrace that notion, there’d be a heck of a lot less virtual blood spilled between we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
Cheers!
“Again, for the purposes of this argument, what is important is this:”
Nope. For the purposes of the discussion on this particular thread - Sen. Cruz is a dual citizen. Dual citizenship was not legal under US law OR English common law (since you keep focusing on such) at the time the Constitution was signed in 1787.
Dual citizenship is still not legal - strictly speaking - under current US *NATURALIZATION* laws either. It is tolerated.
Mr. Cruz, who I happen to admire tremendously, is a dual citizen through no fault of his own. His birth circumstances can never be changed, so his eligibility under Article ll can never be changed.
You must at the very least concede that there was absolutely NO Act, law or provision for dual citizenship at the time the Constitution was signed. It did not exist as an OPTION.
Not in English common law, or any law in the new U.S. either. If you can find such a law ........... but one does not exist. Particularly NOT at the time the Constitution was signed.
NOBODY is on YOUR side, yet you have the nerve to call ME stupid?
Yet another misconception. Dual citizenship does not disqualify a person from being President. In fact...
According to the usages and understanding of all nations a man may have all the rights of a naturalized citizen or subject in his adopted country, and yet retain all his relations, civil and political, in his native country. For instance, the Marquis La Fayette was naturalized in the United States, but retained every such relation to France. So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United States, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States."
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President, was a dual citizen when elected President of the United States. There is no record that he ever repudiated his French citizenship, so he was a dual citizen of the United States and France while he was serving as President.
A General Abridgement and Digest of American Law, published 1824.
This "undivided loyalty" requirement that birthers are fond of talking about DID NOT EXIST.
They only wanted to guard against royalty native to other countries sweeping in and taking over.
They didn't even require the President to spend more than 14 years of his LIFE on American soil.
Well, contrary to what other “experts” on the internet might tell you, Vattel DID use the term “Natural Subjects.”
I found it years ago in a 1770ish French copy.
It’s in section XVII, and NOT the Natives and Indigenes section that everyone seems to promulgate and dissect, ad nauseam.
Here’s what I found in the original:
[...] Les fujets naturels d’un Prince lui font attachés [...]
Now, let me bring that up-to-date for you by getting rid of Ye Olde style of spelling:
[...] Les sujets naturels d’un Prince lui font attachés [...]
Now, let me translate it for you:
[...] The natural subjects of the Prince are attached to him [...]
Pretty cut and dry.
So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Subjects” is a bit deceptive and doesn’t really hold up to close scrutiny. After all, can one legitimately argue that the phrase “natural subjects of the Prince” doesn’t convey the idea that they were born in a kingdom with fealty to the Prince of that kingdom?
Just my two cents.
That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers’ original intent, it is one’s loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born.
I see nothing that Cruz has done which goes against that litmus test. Ergo, even though I have doubts as to if Cruz actually dotted all the “i’s” in his Natural Born-ness paperwork, his loyalty to America does indeed seem to pass the Original Intent of the Natural Born requirements for a President. And, barring any unforeseen trips to Canada wherein he stumps for Canadian politicians, I’ve got no problem voting for him if he wins the primaries.
On the other hand, Obama... Well, let’s just say that Obama is the very One Our Founding Fathers warned us about and is why they felt so motivated to insert that Natural Born Clause!
Cheers!
See 670.
Sorry to break the news to you, but you've been had. The birther doctrine of "undivided loyalties" is a myth.
They simply didn't care whether a person's parents came from another country.
(William Rawle, friend and colleague of both Franklin and Washington: "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.")
They didn't care whether a person spent his entire life in a foreign country, except for a minimum of 14 years.
(Article II, Section 5, United States Constitution).
Heck, they didn't care whether a President was a dual citizen.
(Thomas Jefferson, author of Declaration of Independence and 3rd US President, 1801-1809).
They just wanted to keep the British and other European royalty out.
Crash. Bang. That was the entire birther meme of "undivided loyalties," collapsing in a heap on the floor.
Obama Sr was NEVER an American citizen. So why are you not parading with a protest placard in front of the white house?
The US Embassy is NOT the final arbiter on your son’e eligibility. DO not lose faith!
Well, then. Back to the original wording of the US Constitution: ““unless he now be a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
That was changed.
Cruz is a dual citizen. Dual citizenship is not OFFICIALLY a class of citizenship in the US, it never has been. THERE IS NO US LAW which officially recognizes dual citizenship.
We are discussing US laws here, right? Not some “honorary citizenship”.
You SHOW US a US law that states we have provisions for dual citizenship as a official class of US citizenship.
US CITIZENSHIP. Was Mr. Jefferson BORN a dual citizen? NO.
You make a brilliant point. If 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct, the the 14th is also not sacrosanct. Can’t have it both ways, all you self appointed scholars on NBC.
Are children born to illegals on US soil NBC?
I'm sorry, but I still disagree with your assessment of that chart. I've done enough reading on the subject to know that it's at odds with the Framers' understanding of the phrase, Natural Born Citizen.
Simple logic dictates that a person born on the soil of a country, to two citizen parents, will most likely have the greatest degree of unshakeable loyalty to the country of their birth. This is the fundamental point here, and is something which I believe the Framers easily processed with simple reasoning.
Further, I firmly believe that it was their intent to encode that simple logic and reasoning into our Constitution, in Article II, Section I of that document.
Using your understanding of the NBC clause, it would be just fine with the Framers if we put a man in the Oval Office who was raised outside this country and its history and culture, simply because he laid claim to having been born on our soil.
Wait.....oh my....we did that in 2008, didn't we?
I am a huge fan of Mr Rogers, and have seen an awful lot from him that is just SPOT ON.
That said, DoctorBulldog, I do believe you have at least a small point here. (See, I'm not totally one-sided!)
I would have to side with DoctorBulldog on this and say that a reasonable translation of "sujets naturels," in English, would be "natural born subjects." So technically well, a point for DoctorBulldog.
That said...
I have just searched the French text of Vattel's book. The sentence you mention is the ONLY time he mentions either "sujects naturels" or "sujet naturel" (the singular form) in the entire book.
Aside from that, the ENTIRE POINT, the ENTIRE CLAIM of birthers is that "natural born CITIZEN" is (against all reason and sense) something totally different from "natural born SUBJECT."
And Vattel NEVER mentions "citoyens naturels" (plural) or "citoyen naturel" (singular). Not once.
And he ONE time he mentions "sujets naturels," he shows no sign at all of talking about his his "natives," or "indigenes."
So even Vattel, it appears, knew the difference between a "natural born subject," and "natives, ou indigenes."
Point: DoctorBulldog. Next point, game, set, and match: Mr Rogers.
Doesn't matter in the slightest. You said:
Dual citizenship was not legal under US law OR English common law (since you keep focusing on such) at the time the Constitution was signed in 1787.
If you're doing anything, you're just playing with words here.
It is clear that dual citizenship existed in the very early days of the United States.
It is clear that our THIRD PRESIDENT was a DUAL CITIZEN, AT THE TIME HE SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
If the Framers of the Constitution had been so opposed to "divided loyalty" as you claim, don't you think they would have made such an outroar that Jefferson would have been forced to renounce his French citizenship?
Remember, this was just a dozen years after the Constitution was written, and less than that after it was ratified.
And yet... no one... gave... a royal flip.
Are you like the rest of the birthers? In that you're going to believe in birtherism even if the facts are all against you? Because I have sole title to a fine, fine bridge that is set to hugely appreciate in value. I need to sell in order to raise cash for a sick Dalmatian.
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.