Madison’s quote was regarding the birthright citizenship of William Loughton Smith, whose eligibility for the House of Representatives was disputed by his opponent in his election to the First Congress. Madison clearly states that Smith’s citizenship derives from birthright due to the place of his birth, and that because of that no other source need be consulted. That is quite inconsistent with the article David Ramsay authored.
Furthermore, the major objection Mr. Smith’s opponent made to his citizenship was the fact that Smith was absent from the United State from 1770 to 1783. That, of course, would mean Smith was not a citizen under the criteria put forth in David Ramsay’s article. The fact that Madison so emphatically asserted Smith’s citizenship shows that Madison disagreed with Ramsay’s views on citizenship.
And just who was Mr. Smith’s opponent? I was interested to learn that it was none other than David Ramsay! Ramsay wrote that article in support of his own argument that he should be seated in the First Congress because Smith was not a citizen. The First Congress disagreed with Ramsay.
David Ramsay’s views on citizenship were self-serving and were rejected by the members of the First Congress - and by none more emphatically than Madison, the primary draftsman of the Constitution. Ramsay’s views of citizenship were clearly not shared by his contemporaries, and thus his writings are no real evidence of the general understanding of the natural born citizen clause.
Any other evidence you’d care to put forth?
<>Madison’s quote was regarding the birthright citizenship of William Loughton Smith, whose eligibility for the House of Representatives was disputed by his opponent in his election to the First Congress. Madison clearly states that Smith’s citizenship derives from birthright due to the place of his birth, and that because of that no other source need be consulted.<>
Read Madison’s response carefully. He says that Smith’s
“ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony [South Carolina]”. That’s Vattel’s and Ramsay’s definition of natural born citizen right there in front of you — birth in a colony of which one’s ancestors were among the first setlers of that colony. And that his allegiance was first and foremost to that colony in which he was born from descendants of the first settlers.
The question was whether this was allegiance to Britain or whether allegiance to the United States, affirmed or denied by activities during the years of his absence during the Revolution.
Madison’s argument was that Smith was an indisputable citizen of South Carolina, born where his “ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony”, and his loyalties followed that colony wherever it went, and he had committed no overt act during the years of his absence to alter that fact.
<> Ramsay’s views of citizenship were clearly not shared by his contemporaries, and thus his writings are no real evidence of the general understanding of the natural born citizen clause.<>
Madison disagrees with you, saying:
“It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles...”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
You need to read carefully and objectively despite what you might be paid to do.