Bernard Goldberg: I Have Natural Born Citizen Fatigue

Donofrio, and other’s have been exploring and exposing the natural born Citizen issue (& not the B.C. issue) from the begining. No goal posts were involved.

“William & Mary Law School was founded in 1779 at the impetus of the governor of Virginia Thomas Jefferson, an alumnus of the College, during the reorganization of the originally royal institution, transforming the College of William & Mary into the first university in the nascent United States”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_%26_Mary_School_of_Law

Close enough.

You're not looking for it.

Not anymore. I've already looked and I didn't find any to support the alternate theory. Apart from that, the proponents of the alternate theory ought to be happy to provide evidence if they have found any. Since *I* couldn't find any support for their theory, and THEY seemingly cannot find any support for their theory, why should I concern myself with finding evidence for their theory if there is seemingly none to be found?

So far as I can see you're not looking for actual evidence for your theory either.

Again, not anymore. What I have already found, and what has been found by others and shown to me has been convincing to the extent that more proof is not necessary for my sake.

You're looking for and finding references to Vattel in the Founders and Framers, but do any of them directly address the question of "natural born citizens" ("les naturels ou les indigenes")?

The reason we are finding references to Vattel is because those references exist. As to them directly addressing the issue of "natural born citizen" I will have to say this: While the Founders were debating what to put in the US Constitution, they discussed many things which they regarded as more important than Article II. It was evident that they were blazing new ground, creating institutions which never existed before, applying principles which had only previously existed in theory, and developing new ideas on the fly. It was known that they had copies of Vattel's book, and that they read them. It is even cited as a reference in the notes of the Convention. This book delves deeply into the issue of Governance, and what is correct and proper in the art of governing. It likewise incorporated new ideas that were not particularly compatible with monarchy. It was the product of some of the new notions of civil liberties and the rights of man. Rousseau, Locke and Burke were contemporaries of this age, and their ideas were widespread at this time. Vattel's work fits in well with this revolutionary fervor, and effectively serves as an outline for our governing document. Do you know of any other such work which would have served them better for what they were trying to do? Is there another such book as "Law of Nations"? Article II may have been important, but other articles received much more focus. As they were familiar with Vattel's definition and found it satisfactory, they passed article II without much debate or comment. It probably wouldn't have even been included had John Jay not urged them to do so.

And what about all the references to Blackstone in the writings and speeches of the Founders and Framers? By what I can make out there are more references to Blackstone than to Vattel in their works.

That Most of American law is based on English Law is indisputable. As such, a Book of English Law was quite valuable at that time. However, we distinctly broke from English Law on many points; Citizenship being one of the primary ones. As we expressed our disagreement with the notion of being subjects through the War of American Independence, why would we utilize the characteristics of the condition which we specifically overthrew? On this specific issue, (and others) Blackstone no longer applied, but it was still a good reference book on other salient issues of law.

Principles can help us to interpret the Constitution but principles conflict and how far does the Constitution go in enshrining one principle rather than an alternative or competing principle? You have to look at the actual words to do that. Otherwise all you're doing is imposing your own judgment on the document.

Remember that show "Connections" with James Burke? He would show how one thing led to another. It can be shown to most reasonable people that what led to the creation of Article II as it is, was the letter from John Jay to George Washington urging that language be included " to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration..." . As this was the origin of Article II, how can it be argued that Article II is not meant to serve that purpose? The article itself specifically differentiates between "natural born citizens" and "citizens" of a different sort. The distinction is whether someone is born into one allegiance or another. A "Natural born citizen" can only be born to a single allegiance, while other types of citizens were born to a different allegiance. They don't get to CHOSE an allegiance. It is chosen for them by the circumstances of their birth.

In those days, Citizenship followed the Father. The Sons of English Men were Automatically British Subjects wherever they were born, Even in America. (As far as the British were concerned.) We vehemently disagreed during the War of 1812. Once a man became an American, he broke the chain of English subjugation on himself and his offspring.

Still off target.

None of our Founding Fathers ever attended law school!

There were no law schools for them to attend, Idiot.

That’s why Thomas Jefferson started the first one in America.

Our Founding Fathers could not have attended Law School in the US - there were none.

"Our Founding Fathers could not have attended Law School in the US - there were none."

That's not true.

Considering Harvard Law School wasn’t founded until the mid-1800’s, what American law schools were open for the founding fathers to attend in the mid-1700’s?

From the Harvard web site on the "About us" page

Founded in 1817, Harvard Law School is the oldest continuously operating law school in the United States.

Nah, UVA opened in 1826, Harvard beat it out by about 9 years, but you are on track with everything else.