True, Paine was not a delegate. But as I pointed out, Thomas Jefferson wasn't a delegate either, but his letter in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association has become the justification for the "wall of separation between church and state." Also not "law," but Jefferson's letter is apparently treated as such.
However there are other writings from people who were delegates to the contrary;
I'd like to see those. Can you point me to some?
Further, you are engaging in a misrepresentation of what Paine actually said. All he said was "native" and yes the arguments about half native and whatnot might or might not mean something...
I think you are engaging in the misrepresentation, becuase you say that " All he said was 'native'..." which is not true. Paine went on to refer to "foreigner" and "half a foreigner," and contrasted that with the words "full natural or political connection with the country." Paine goes on to say that "The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded..." He clearly intended this to mean the full or partial foreigner that he had just finished describing.
Native was in fact the issue the real delegates viewed as controlling alright...
Read further down in the linked thread to see other posters' documentation on what the word "native" meant at the time.
-PJ
Read further down in the linked thread to see other posters' documentation on what the word "native" meant at the time.
Sure, but the point about foreign and half foreign is the same thing.
But there is also correspondence among others (some of which as I recall is a fairly recent discovery) who were delegates and all they talk about is place of birth.
But there is a reason for that and it comes back down to what the US tries to do to people on the other side of this coin--make them citizens and levy taxes on their income even though they aren't here. Under international law doctrines, the sovereign of the place of birth has significant jurisdiction.
On the other hand, a country can make a person a statutory citizen and that doesn't extend any power at all. Maybe a third of all American's with European ancestry are citizens of some other country in Europe--most don't even know it. Irrelevant.
Jefferson's letter happened to be consistent with where the Court was going at the time the religion issue appeared but as a general proposition, the Court doesn't give a lot of weight to argument's like this in much of any case.
Bottom line, and this is the end of our discussion; the weight of whatever history there is sits on place of birth. And the legislative history is not the only reason the Court is going to come down on this side of the issue.