We all know that the Founders and Framers were not of one mind on practically any issue. That is why, shortly after ratification, they split into Republicans like Jefferson and Madison versus Federalists like Washington and Hamilton.
Zephaniah Swift was a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, serving as its Speaker in 1792, as well as clerk for four sessions. From 1793 to 1797, he served in the Federal Congress as well as a Pro-Administration representative in his first term and as a Federalist in his second. The Connecticut Judicial Branch in its biography of him says:
“Judge Swift has been praised as one of the greatest early American jurists by Wesley W. Horton in his book, The Connecticut State Constitution. Swift studied at Yale before entering the practice of law, and represented the town of Windham in the General Assembly of Connecticut. He was elected to the U.S. Congress where he served from 1787 to 1793.
Swift wrote the first legal treatise published in America. This work, “A System of the Law of the State of Connecticut,” published in 1795, presents Swift’s observations on government, the constitution of the state, and differences between English and American common law. In 1810, Swift published the first treatise on the law of evidence.
In his legal treatise, Swift wrote: “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…
The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Additionally, James Kent was a man whose reputation in American law is such that William Curtiss, wrote a book in 1900 called “James Kent: The Father of American Jurisprudence,” about him. Also of interest to us conservatives is a book written on him in 2000 called “James Kent: A Study in Conservatism 1763-1847” by John Theodore Horton. Kent’s most remembered work is his “Commentaries on American Law,” written between 1826 and 1830. This was a four volume magnum opus dealing with state, federal, and international law, as well as the law of personal property and rights. In Lecture XIII, which was on the Presidency, from Volume One, Part II, he states the following of the President’s qualifications: 2. Qualifications. — “The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.”
In Lecture XXV from Part IV of Volume II, Kent explains just who qualifies as a native:
1. Of Natives. —Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Finally, William Rawle quickly gained a reputation as an able attorney, eventually serving as chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar from 1822 until his death. As a Federalist he served a term in the Assembly, but found that politics were not to his liking. After his 1791 appointment by George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania, Rawle handled the prosecutions stemming from the whiskey riots in the western part of Pennsylvania. He stepped down from this office in 1799.
In 1829, he wrote “A View of the Constitution.” In this work, he addresses what the term “natural born citizen” means on page 86:
“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…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
I’ll see your Jay and Ramsay and raise you a Swift, a Kent and a Rawle.
Thanks kindly for your reply.
First, we dispatch with Swift, rather swiflty.
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.””
He does not say that the “subjects” are natural born citizens. He speaks of citizens and Natural born subjects. We are debating Natural born citizen.
On to the next.
James kent states that you must be a native.
When he stated this, we are fighting indians. They were natives to America. They were not allowed to run for president because they were not natural born citizens. They came from the soil. Yet had no right to run for president. He never states that Native is the only quality. Never.Because it wasn’t.
Now on to Rawles.
But, Mr. Rawles logic is flawed for the same reason that Mr. Kents argument falls apart. When Rawles make this statement, Slaves are born, yet not citizens. Indians are born, yet not citizens.
So Kent and Rawles are both making claims that directly contradict the reality of the society that they live in.
His statement, on its face, is false. He may wish it were true, but it is demonstrably false.
Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, ..........
Swift - what is stated as applicable to the state of Connecticut does not define or redefine the Constitution.