Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“Did that actually happen?”
Actually it was Pfeiffer who said he would remove the BC from the press room before Barry arrived so that he could not hold it, and Bauer was standing right next to him leaping to say, in effect, that rather than whether Barry is holding the BC, it is statements of HDOH officials should be relied on.
In brief, here is the transcript on the White House’ own website:
REPORTER: Will the President be holding it?
PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.
Here is the best analysis of the WH presser I have found so far on the Citizen Wells blog showing in detail all of the “consciousness of guilt” behavior and statements on that day:
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/obama-long-form-gaggledygook/
It was English law.
For those aspects of American law which were the same. For those aspects of American law which were uniquely American, Training in the British law was a Detriment. As Attorney General Black had pointed out in 1859, the British law was contaminating American law with erroneous opinions and doctrines.
“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”
Really? Because HE WAS THERE. He was in PHILADELPHIA, throughout the Constitutional Convention, and he is KNOWN to have met with both Franklin and Washington in Ben Franklin's home in Philadelphia in the months before the Convention.
And yet he was not a Delegate. What's more, while the Delegates had been spending the last 12 years reading and studying Vattel, Grotius, Puffendorf and Locke, Rawle was busy learning the English version of law. That he was simply not up to speed is the kindest way to put it.
In fact, they had ongoing meetings, so it's almost certain that he continued in close company with them AFTER the Constitutional Convention.
Yes, I can see them all sitting around the table discussing the single most important topic regarding the new government; What the words "Natural born citizen" meant. I would sooner believe that they all assumed the term was non controversial, (like "the right to keep and bear arms") and regarded it as unworthy of discussion or clarification. Those who studied Vattel believed that it required two citizen parents, and those who studied British law believed it simply meant being born on the King's soil. That each would unwittingly think the other shared his belief on this point is quite plausible, and it explains very well why there is so much subsequent confusion with some authorities holding the strict standard, while others held the lenient standard. (Just as Justice Waite noted in Minor v Happersett.)
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Were you there, DL? Were you in Philadelphia? Did you know Ben Franklin and George Washington personally? Did YOU spend hours and hours discussing political and legal matters with them in Ben Franklin's home?
If you didn't, then before William Rawle who did, I think there is only one valid thing you could possibly do.
And that is: Shut the hell up.
Mindless, pointless, ad hominem attack. Oh, and non sequitur.
You also neglected to mention that Rawle was appointed BY GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791 as U.S. District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.
Prosecuting crimes in a state is a very different task from running a nation. International law is usually unnecessary to the function of an Attorney General. Perhaps Rawle would have been called out quicker had he been involved in the State Department.
No, but it proves he was in a HELL of a better position to know something about it than you ever were.
Another ad hominum non sequitur. I may very well have access to information of which Rawle never knew. That Franklin and other Founders had used the Dumas publication of Vattel as a code book for exchanging secret communications during the war, is a possible example. That the book was quite the rage on the American continent during the previous 13 years, even being referenced in two ratifying conventions is another.
Well, it was the majority of the Court, in the deciding Opinion, that referenced Rawle's quote. And they did so specifically in regard to citizenship, in a discussion that talked extensively about NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.
To which court? The Marshall court? The Waite Court? The Fuller Court? The Marshall and Waite courts used Vattel's definition. The Fuller court references Rawle, but I am suspecting they sought out and found references that supported the decision they wanted to Render. Fuller and Harlan (the dissenters) were Democrats, while most of the Majority was Republicans, with only one Southern Democrat. (Edward White) I suspect politics had more to do with it than did actual jurisprudence. The Republicans were the party of an expansive Liberal interpretation at that time.
As for Vattel in The Venus, he wasn't even referenced regarding citizenship. He was referenced regarding DOMICILE. And the translation wasn't even the one that says "natural born citizens."
Citizenship and domicile are interrelated. Marshall QUOTES Vattel on citizenship verbatim. Presumably in the days before typewriters, Marshall had to write out Vattel's definition in long hand. It's hard to argue that he didn't agree with the definition when he specifically said:
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says..."
And then laboriously writes Vattel's definition.
Finally, we can note that not only was Rawle's statement about the children of aliens CRYSTAL clear, NOBODY EVER CONTESTED IT. Nobody ever said that Rawle was wrong. On the contrary, his quote was later referenced as authority by the United States Supreme Court.
Another non sequitur. That nobody ever said it was wrong (of which we are aware) does not prove it to be right. In reality, there has been little need test the distinction between "citizen" and "natural citizen." For most of the nation's existence, Rawle's definition works just fine. In the 19th Century, few came here who were not intent to stay and be citizens. Modern times have certainly changed that dynamic with the introduction of "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism."
So that is a thoroughly, thoroughly LOSING argument.
Not at all. Not only does it have the advantage of being sensible as opposed to the "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism" byproduct of your theory, It has historical support and it also addresses what appear to be paradoxes in your theory. (Loyalists, Indians, and Slaves not begatting citizens.) From the common sense perspective, your's is the weaker of the two theories.
In fact, any Vattel argument you can come up with is a losing one. Historically, you have absolutely no evidence that the Framers paid the slightest attention to him in the Presidential eligibility clause. And it is prima facie, on-its-face OBVIOUS that "natural born subject" became "natural born citizen" when we changed "subject" to "citizen."
You mean none that YOU will acknowledge as evidence. We've got plenty of evidence that the Framers paid quite a lot of attention to him. He was even mentioned prominently in two Constitutional ratifying conventions. You just don't want to look at any of the evidence because you don't want to SEE any evidence which contradicts your preconceived notions.
I suspect that this subject is personal to you or a close friend or family member. You act like someone who does not posses objectivity.
No, we understand it perfectly. We just regard the reasoning as fatally flawed. George Washington was a "natural born subject" of His Majesty, King George III.
To allege anything else is an attempt to promulgate a lie.
The date of his birth is irrelevant. Hawaii has confirmed he was born in Hawaii.
What you have accomplished with your post is to prove someone working for little barry bastard boy has been very busy aligning the talking/posting points. To even spend time refuting your bullshit gives you some degree of credulity to which you are entitled, given your lust to obfuscate and distract in service to your pResident. Satin Dolls post puts ALL your efforts in the crapper where they belong.
You have no creds. You are shuckin’ and jivin’ like your pResident does daily, posting one way then another, asserting one thing then changing assertions and trying to lend credulity to your sleezy work by further seeking to confuse the issues and conflate citizenship with natural born citizen. The wonder is why you continue to enjoy posting priviledges at FR, given your posting history on this thread alone!
Actually, no. but that was a good worshipful try, obamanoid. What hawaii has done is confirm that they have some documents which no one —except perhaps little barry bastard boy and the clerk who pulled them— has seen which make claim that little S. Bernard Dunham was born in Hawaii, in similar fashion as proof of birth to the birth affirmation for Sun Yat Sen.
James Kent's Commentaries on American Law came before Rawle's work. Kent didn’t like Vattel, but admits HE was the one utilized most frequently in the Founding era..
The most popular, and the most elegant writer on the law of nations, is Vattel, whose method has been greatly admired. He has been cited, for the last half century, more freely than any one of the public jurists; but he is very deficient in philosophical precision.
James Kent , 1826
I just gave you my credentials.
The thing that astonishes me is why you and others here are allowed to continue to spew hatred and contempt for our Founding Fathers and all of our early Constitutional experts, to distort their words and misrepresent what they stood for.
.
Your level of hubris is beyond comprehension.
Bwahahahahhaa ... what a maroon!
>> “The most popular, and the most elegant writer on the law of nations, is Vattel, whose method has been greatly admired. He has been cited, for the last half century, more freely than any one of the public jurists; but he is very deficient in philosophical precision.” <<
.
Philosophical precision?
Philosophy is so personal, how can there be such a thing as “Philosophical precision?”
I guess Kent is simply saying that it would be nice if everyone agreed with him? The Rodney King of political philosophy.
Your willingness to distort the words of our Founders and other early leaders, and to distort the clear words of our appointed legal authorities such as the US Supreme Court, is beyond comprehension.
LOL! I guess.
At least Kent restricts himself to a subtle nitpicking over blatant character assassination.
That's a lot more than I can say for the majority of our current crop of political cronies!
ROFLMAO!
The distortion is fully yours and your criminal cohorts.
I’ve stated the wording of the constitution, and of the justices that have upheld it.
Nope. Hawaii has said:
“A birth certificate is on file with the Dept of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Supported by the following Hawaii statute:
“A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
Again, all I’ve done is give an accurate explanation of the words of our Founders and Framers.
The explanation I’ve given has been almost 100% universally accepted by all parties involved throughout the whole of American history.
I have not misrepresented the facts in any way.
So I’m just the messenger.
All the hatred and contempt you spew is not for me. It’s for those who set things up in a way you don’t personally like.
Those who did that are our Founders and Framers.
>> “Again, all I’ve done is give an accurate explanation of the words of our Founders and Framers” <<
.
You’re stil on drugs, huh?
You have denied the truths and musings of every authority of the era of the founding.
On the contrary, it is I who have POSTED the truths and musings of every authority of the era of the founding.
Perhaps you missed it.
French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”
This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
James Madison, House of Representatives (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 investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
The First Congress (1790):
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.".
Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):
"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.”
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.
Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):
"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.
Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”
And again.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.
French books on the Constitution:
“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“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.”
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837:
“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
From Spanish books on the Constitution:
“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)
Born a citizen.
“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Native citizen.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:
"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
Where are the opposing quotes from early America that say that citizen parents were required for any person born on US soil? Aside from physician and historian David Ramsay, who was not a core founder, had zero legal training, and was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison, THERE ARE NONE.
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.