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

Skip to comments.

Jefferson On Citizenship Under A Republican Form Of Government
ConstitutionallySpeaking ^ | Aug 19, 2010 | constitutionallyspeaking aka patlin

Posted on 08/19/2010 9:51:33 PM PDT by patlin

Now, let us begin this short visit back into the year of 1803 and the wisdom & patriotism of Thomas Jefferson from his time in the Virginia state legislature…

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of-foreigners ? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect: the greatest number, of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth ; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for.an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

(snip)Read & learn the truth through Jefferson himself as to which principles of the English constitution they rejected thus adopting better laws based on natural rights & natural reason…

(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: constituion; immigration; naturalborncitizen; naturallaw
more evidence that the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance and citizenship determined soley by birth on soil was abolished on July 4, 1776
1 posted on 08/19/2010 9:51:38 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: patlin

You really don’t expect anyone in government to read and understand it do you?

They will never get past “Now, let us begin..”


2 posted on 08/19/2010 10:14:50 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
60 years and they still can't read the second word in NAZI.
3 posted on 08/19/2010 10:41:52 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:31 Behold, I am against you, O you most proud, said the Lord God of hosts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patlin
more evidence that the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance and citizenship determined soley by birth on soil was abolished on July 4, 1776

I'm not so sure about that ... it would seem that Jefferson was arguing that, based soley on a persons birth on the soil of a foreign country - this would lead to this persons loayalty to such forms of government as were in force at the time of his birth/upbringing in that country or the absolute opposite - but NOT to the principles on which our country was founded. And further, that this would be a danger to our very foundations.

Under the same logic, anyone born and raised in the United States would learn OUR principles of government.

IMHO - this argument pertains more to immigration itself as to whether someone in country should be granted citizenship based on "birth on soil" - IOW, get the illegals out (and keep them out!) and the question of whether someone born here is a citizen tends to, mostly, solve itself. Control exactly WHO is allowed to immigrate - only allow those immigrants who profess an understanding of our form of government and the principles on which the country was founded. Visitors are permitted, but receive no special status if, and when, the hapen to deliver a child on our soil ...

4 posted on 08/20/2010 1:44:55 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

The laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britian at the time of the Constitutional Convention in regard to citizenship were the exception rather than the rule in Western Civilization insofar as it claimed the allegiance of newborns while also prohibiting expatriation for a lifetime. Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were concerned about the ability of a foreign sovereign to command the involuntary allegiance of persons who have attempted to expatriate. It was this very issue which became a compelling cause of the War of 1812 where the United States sought to defend its seamen, merchant marine, and citizens from being seized on the High Seas, in foreign ports, and elsewhere by British and other governments asserting supremacy over the allegiances of U.S. ships, crews, and passengers.

The newly independent states variously recognized a mix of European citizenship practices and laws, some of which did and did not recognize citizenship by right of birth on the soil of a state. This continued for a number of decades into the early 19th Century.


5 posted on 08/20/2010 5:11:17 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I am aware of that - I fail to see though how that relates to what I posted.


6 posted on 08/20/2010 8:39:32 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: patlin

And then there’s James Madison’ point of view. The following was said on the floor of the House of Representatives on May 22, 1789: “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; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html


7 posted on 08/20/2010 9:24:34 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Under the same logic, anyone born and raised in the United States would learn OUR principles of government.

No it wouldn't. Education wasn't free for all at that time and many immigrants educated their children at home & taught them the customs of the parents home country. Public education was not a part of the system. Most schools were run by the churches.

IMHO - this argument pertains more to immigration itself as to whether someone in country should be granted citizenship based on “birth on soil”

Jefferson said: The following are the most remarkable alterations(to the English law) proposed..and then went on state this:

To define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens, and citizens make themselves aliens

What part of “define with precision” do you not understand?

May 1779 Virginia Papers 2:476–78

Be it enacted by the General Assembly,...and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth or who migrate hither, their father...shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth...And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

IOW, there were only 2 ways to become a citizen, you were either born to parentS(plural)who were already citizens at the time of the birth or you were naturalized. You were either natural born or you were naturalized upon the naturalization of the parents. You obviously are lacking objective reasoning which Jefferson & Wilson spoke of as a requisite to interpreting the constitution & laws.

8 posted on 08/20/2010 9:32:00 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
ROFL, that lame argument again where you parse & edit only the part of Madison's words to hide the part wherein he tells why Smith was a citizen by birth on the soil.
What you leave out is that part of the discussion that pertained to citizen, not NBC & Madison also further went on to say that “

Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”

Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of jus soli birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim.

Madison further explains farther into his speech on the floor that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence... Smith's parents died before the revolution was over & the society adopted young Smith, raised him, educated him & sent him overseas to study under Franklin. Ramsay was a fool to try and get him ousted. He was bitter & that is just human nature, but Madison got it right on the law. Smith was a native citizen because the society recognized him as a citizen member of that society at the time of the revolution & his parents death made no change to that status.

9 posted on 08/20/2010 9:46:37 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: patlin

ROFL, that lame argument again where you parse & edit only the part of Madison’s words to hide the part wherein he tells why Smith was a citizen by birth on the soil.
What you leave out is that part of the discussion that pertained to citizen, not NBC & Madison also further went on to say that “
Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”

Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of jus soli birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim.

Madison further explains farther into his speech on the floor that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence... Smith’s parents died before the revolution was over & the society adopted young Smith, raised him, educated him & sent him overseas to study under Franklin. Ramsay was a fool to try and get him ousted. He was bitter & that is just human nature, but Madison got it right on the law. Smith was a native citizen because the society recognized him as a citizen member of that society at the time of the revolution & his parents death made no change to that status.


Can you point me to any law in the US Code or any decision rendered by the Supreme Court where the terms “born citizen” or “native born citizen” and the term “natural born citizen” are distinquished from each other?

There is no difference in law between a natural born citizen and a born citizen. Born citizens can be president, naturalized citizens cannot be president.

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President.” Art. II Section I.
Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President.” Art II Section I.—”Schneider v Rusk, 377 US163
Supreme Court of the United States (1964)

If there was such a distinction under law, Barack Hussein Obama would not be president of the United States today.

Chief Justice Roberts would never have sworn him in, the US Supreme Court would have taken on at least one of the eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them for Justices’ conferences, and at least two of the 535 members of Congress would have challenged his right to receive electoral college votes at the joint session of Congress held to count and certify Obama’s electoral college votes.


10 posted on 08/20/2010 11:14:58 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: patlin
IOW, there were only 2 ways to become a citizen, you were either born to parentS(plural)who were already citizens at the time of the birth or you were naturalized.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. As I read it, Jefferson's saying that birth to a single citizen parent is enough: the father if he's living, or the mother if he's not. Where do you see the plural-parents requirement?

12 posted on 08/20/2010 11:41:09 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Besides Vattel’s Law of Nations used by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention, some early Federal cases, and an early U.S. Code; there is also the John Jay’s letter ro George Washington and its natural logic. When it was first proposed to make eligible for the Office of the President any native born citizen of sufficient age, John Jay objected in his letter and asked for the requirement to be made more restrictive with the person being required to be a natural born citizen. If a native born citizen and natural born citizen were meant to be interchangeable terms as you suggest, there would have been no such letter from John Jay, the future first U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and no need whatsoever to have changed the draft of the Constitution to include the natural born citizen terminology.

The U.S. Supreme Court long ago required the construction of the Constitution to give weight to all terms used in the document’s language, and devaluing the natural born citizen phrasing is inappropriate and without just reason.


13 posted on 08/20/2010 12:50:58 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
When it was first proposed to make eligible for the Office of the President any native born citizen of sufficient age, John Jay objected in his letter and asked for the requirement to be made more restrictive with the person being required to be a natural born citizen.

I can't find anything about a proposal that used the term "native born citizen," and Jay's letter doesn't use it. Do you have a reference?

14 posted on 08/20/2010 3:24:05 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
the bill that passed that Jefferson wrote states that the “father” must be a citizen, or as natural law & reason dictate, or otherwise, if the father not living, the mother must have been a citizen:

whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth

This means that c itizenhip at birth was strictly given to those born to parentS(plural) who were citizens as the wife followed the nationality of the husband at the time they said "I DO". That was the law according to Wilson who wrote the 1st American law books for the 1st American law school:

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

15 posted on 08/20/2010 3:30:53 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
blah, blah, blah. Just more regurgitation of liberal left talking points. You haven't brought anything new to the debate for months now. I guess researching and actually studying history with an open mind, let alone an ounce of the natural reason it takes to come to a logical & correct conclusion is still above your pay grade.
16 posted on 08/20/2010 3:38:40 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: patlin

blah, blah, blah. Just more regurgitation of liberal left talking points. You haven’t brought anything new to the debate for months now. I guess researching and actually studying history with an open mind, let alone an ounce of the natural reason it takes to come to a logical & correct conclusion is still above your pay grade.


Ooo, good comeback! If you keep up those vicious barbs you just might hurt my feelings one of these days! ;-)

A conservative judge has fined a birther attorney $20,000 for wasting the Court’s time with foolishness. Solid conservatives like Ann Coulter and Karl Rove have called you guys “cranks” and “conspiracy nuts.” The Republican Administration of Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii has authenticated Obama’s birth in that state and rejected all attempts to say otherwise. Governor Lingle delivered one of Sarah Palin’s endorsement speeches at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

The fact remains that 72 Obama eligibility lawsuits have been rejected including 8 at the US Supreme Court. Those well known “liberals” Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito told Orly Taitz to go away and pay her 20-grand fine just this past week.

But, hey, the First Amendment is still in efffect, so knock yourself out. Enjoy!

“If Tea Party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, ‘birthers’ who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.”
—Karl Rove, February 17, 2010, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page


17 posted on 08/20/2010 4:28:01 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Those who believe the usurper is American are the conspiracy nuts.


18 posted on 08/20/2010 4:48:17 PM PDT by 83Vet4Life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Besides Vattel’s Law of Nations used by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention, some early Federal cases, and an early U.S. Code; there is also the John Jay’s letter ro George Washington and its natural logic. When it was first proposed to make eligible for the Office of the President any native born citizen of sufficient age, John Jay objected in his letter and asked for the requirement to be made more restrictive with the person being required to be a natural born citizen. If a native born citizen and natural born citizen were meant to be interchangeable terms as you suggest, there would have been no such letter from John Jay, the future first U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and no need whatsoever to have changed the draft of the Constitution to include the natural born citizen terminology.

The U.S. Supreme Court long ago required the construction of the Constitution to give weight to all terms used in the document’s language, and devaluing the natural born citizen phrasing is inappropriate and without just reason.


There is no “devaluation” of the phrase “natural born citizen.” What there is, is an equivalence in the law of that phrase with the 14th Amendment’s “born citizen.”

The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to not expect that their original work would stand as is for all time, that’s why they provided for an amendment process but made it extremely difficult to amend their work. Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1865, post Vattel and post Constitutional Convention, there have only been two classifications of American citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president, naturalized citizens cannot.

If that interpretation of the law of the land were any different, I am certain that the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court would have accepted at least one of the eight appeals that have reached them concerning the constitutionality of Barack Obama’s presidency. They have rejected them all. That means that they believe other appeals present more pressing constitutional issues demanding their attention.

As a Ronald Reagan appointed federal judge recently wrote in his opinion dismissing an Obama eligibility quo warranto claim: ““This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010

And as a scholar of the original intent of the Constitution, Justice Antonin Scalia said during oral arguments in a recent citizenship case: “Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071). Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on “jus soli” (birth in the United States).

Here is the relevant section from the transcript:
Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

Justice Scalia: That is “jus soli,” isn’t it?

[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

It requires “jus soli,” doesn’t it?

There was no mention in Justice Scalia’s discussion on “jus sanguinis” (natural born citizenship by right of blood relationships).


19 posted on 08/20/2010 4:50:13 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: patlin
the bill that passed that Jefferson wrote states that the “father” must be a citizen, or as natural law & reason dictate, or otherwise, if the father not living, the mother must have been a citizen:

Right, that's the way I read it too. But that means if the father is dead, the mother (a single parent) is able to transmit citizenship by herself. And presumably, if the mother is dead, the father is able to transmit citizenship by himself. That seems to me to undermine the notion that both parents must be citizens.

Or are you saying there was no way for a woman to become an American citizen except by marriage?

20 posted on 08/20/2010 6:51:44 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Or are you saying there was no way for a woman to become an American citizen except by marriage?

Absolutely not. What I am saying goes to the natural right & natural reason according to natural law and that is what Supreme Court Justice James Wilson(also signer of the Declaration & Constitution) stated in his works on American Law. According to the law, when a man & woman enter into a marriage, the 2 become one. The woman takes the name of the husband as well as what ever allegiance he has. Therefore, the entire household is in unity & happiness under but one allegiance and thus all off-spring shall also be of that allegiance.

When we speak of a child born into the marriage we are speaking of a legitimate child. According to natural law, an illegitimate child at birth has allegiance under the law to the society the mother is a member of. Only when & if the mother & father marry does the child then become legitimated and take the allegiance of the father. Some societies went further & legitimated the child when the mother married any man as according to natural law, the male was to be the provider of the family unit.

I blame a lot of this on the progressive women's movement. But, don't get me wrong, I believe women always had the right to vote in the society in which they were members, but that should have never had anything to do with conferring citizenship under natural law when a child is born in wedlock. This notion was bred by the progressive movement to dumb down citizenship in order to further their agenda of global citizenship & a one world order. They are only a few pen strikes away from completing that part of the agenda. It is up to us to reverse this course and that is why I work so hard at researching to uncover the truth of the law as it was written, not as the progressives would have you think it was written.

21 posted on 08/20/2010 8:52:58 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 83Vet4Life

Those who believe the usurper is American are the conspiracy nuts.


Tell it to Karl Rove, its his characterization.
However its the rare usurper who gets 69 million votes, 365 Electoral College votes, no objections from any of 535 members of Congress to the certification of his Electoral votes and then gets sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States, handed the keys to the White House by George W. Bush, and handed the nuclear football with the launch codes to every nuclear missile in the US arsenal by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And then gets invited over for cocktails by the Supreme Court Justices.


22 posted on 08/20/2010 10:05:49 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: patlin
According to the law, when a man & woman enter into a marriage, the 2 become one. The woman takes the name of the husband as well as what ever allegiance he has.

If that were true, there could be no such thing as an American citizen man married to a French citizen woman--the French woman would automatically become an American citizen upon marriage. That's not the way it works under current law, however. Do you believe that's a mistake, or a way in which the actual law conflicts with natural law?

23 posted on 08/20/2010 10:09:24 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
It's not what I believe, it is a matter of natural law, natural right & natural reason in which our country's Declaration of Independence & Constitution were founded upon.

Allowing women to retain a foreign citizenship is not the problem as along as it only pertains to her citizenship & civic rights i.e. voting. It's when government goes further away from natural law and says that the mother's nationality also passes to the child when the child is born in wedlock. What this basically does is divide the child in 2 from the moment of birth and makes the child subject to competing laws of different nations and there is absolutely nothing natural or reasonable about that action. It is a man made concept(feudal common law emphasis on the term feudal, it is always in conflict with nature & reason); a concept that was repugnant to the founders & framers and thus was wholly rejected & abolished.

24 posted on 08/21/2010 9:14:26 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
If that were true, there could be no such thing as an American citizen man married to a French citizen woman—the French woman would automatically become an American citizen upon marriage.

As far as if I believe it was a mistake, the answer is YES! It was the 2nd step in de-unifying the family unit, the 1st being the WKA decision of 1898. At the time of the ratification of the constitution, there was no such thing as ‘civil marriages’. The law dictated that the marriage had to take place in a house of worship by a minister of God, or in the case of the Quaker, i.e. today the Amish, the law allowed for the marriages to take place in their respective communes. It was the churches that were responsible for the records of marriage, not the municipal governments. As Wilson put it:

That important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family . . . The family is the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good.

25 posted on 08/21/2010 9:31:54 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
any law in the US Code or any decision rendered by the Supreme Court

How did John Jay know what "natural born citizen" meant without the guidance of the US Code or the Supreme Court? Or do you think he had a time machine?

26 posted on 08/23/2010 2:17:44 AM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

How did John Jay know what “natural born citizen” meant without the guidance of the US Code or the Supreme Court? Or do you think he had a time machine?


There is a difference between “personal opinion” and “codified law”. John Jay’s opinion as Chief Justice never was expressed in a decision of the Supreme Court.

With regard to the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama, 72 courts (including 8 attempts at the Supreme Court) have thus far ajudicated lawsuits on that issue and zero courts have ruled him to be ineligible.
There is no law on the books that spells out precisely who shall be considered a “natural born citizen.” The closest the current law of the land comes is in spelling out who shall be a “born citizen.” Whether there is a difference in the law between a born citizen and a natural born citizen is yet to be determined.


27 posted on 08/23/2010 11:09:14 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

You forgot to answer the question — How did John Jay know what “natural born citizen” meant without the guidance of the US Code or the Supreme Court?

Are you saying that the words ahd no meaning when they were written?

You are a disingenous anti-American whackjob.


28 posted on 09/03/2010 1:28:38 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

You forgot to answer the question — How did John Jay know what “natural born citizen” meant without the guidance of the US Code or the Supreme Court?

Are you saying that the words had no meaning when they were written?

You are a disingenuous anti-American whackjob.


29 posted on 09/03/2010 1:29:23 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

Are you saying that the words had no meaning when they were written?

You are a disingenuous anti-American whackjob.


The United States of America is such a great nation that even disingenous anti-American whackjobs are afforded the right to state their personal opinions! ;-)

One more time, I’m saying that John Jay wrote an OPINION on the issue, nothing more, nothing less. His OPINION is not codified in the law of the land. The 14th Amendment still stands as the law of the land: “All persons born...”

Just like John Jay, you are entitled to YOUR opinions, but that’s all they are, opinions. If John Jay’s point of view was the law of the land, I am certain that the Justices of the current US Supreme Court would have agreed to hear at least one of the eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them for Justices’ Cert conferences. Since it only takes four Justices to agree to hear an appeal and since there are five originalist/conservative Justices on the high court bench, it is obvious that the current High Court has not been swayed by John Jay’s personal point of view. Then as now, it takes a majority of the Justices to agree to have a ruling that stands.


30 posted on 09/03/2010 4:33:35 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Hey dipshit,

John Jay wrote the clause into the Constitution.


31 posted on 09/05/2010 2:37:18 AM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

Hey dipshit,

John Jay wrote the clause into the Constitution.


Which clause it that?


32 posted on 09/05/2010 11:08:40 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Put down the crack pipe.


33 posted on 09/07/2010 1:07:09 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

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