Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich’s VP Candidate Choices for Romney
CNBC ^ | 7/27/2012 | Bruno J. Navarro

Posted on 07/30/2012 7:49:02 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 last
To: Kansas58; rxsid

Rxsid - I pinged since you were the person who found the James Madison references about ‘citizenship’ in the newspaper, Richmond Enquirer, of October 1, 1811.

Kansas58 said: “You are wrong to ignore the interpretations of James Madison, who WROTE the very document you hold in such high regard.”

President James Madison had very pointed opinions about citizenship, opinions he provided as Publius in the following newspapers, the Richmond Enquirer on October 1, 1811, and which was then republished in The Alexandria Herald on October 10, 1811. Again, I strongly suggest you go to the link I provide and educate yourself.

“THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.”

“I was recently forwarded an incredibly amazing article from the October 10, 1811 edition of The Alexandria Herald newspaper. RXSID of Free Republic sent it with a brief note, stating, “Check out this case.” The Herald article is entitled, Case of James McClure. The author is…PUBLIUS.”

“Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, for their anonymous authorship of The Federalist Papers. By 1811, Hamilton was dead and Jay retired. My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet. Regardless of authorship, Madison was President at the time the article was written, and it discusses the official position of his administration denying U.S. citizenship based upon simple birth in the country.”

“The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens...”

For further details, see:

Kansas58 said: “You are wrong to ignore the members of Congress who debated these issues at length, when crafting the 14th Amendment.”

Debates in Congress don’t matter. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with “natural born Citizen” eligibility as it exists in Article II.

The holding in Minor v. Happersett (1874) is legal precedent. It has not been superceded.

Congress could change that eligibility requirement by using the process specified in the U.S. Constitution, but that won’t happen. It would mean EVERYONE would find out the definition as it presently exists, for that definition would have to be mentioned to propose any change.

Kansas58 said: “You are wrong to arrogantly presume that you know what the Constitution means, to the exclusion of all other voices on the matter.”

If I “arrogantly presume” anything, it is that corruption has seeped throughout the body politic, especially since so many self-professed Republicans want to emulate communists within the Democratic Party.

101 posted on 08/01/2012 7:01:09 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Sorry for the late reply to you response.

First, Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is NOT “controlling” as you state, on 1st Amendment or Church/State issues. Next?

Why do you say this, given that the phrase "church and state" does not exist in the Constitution, and the only place that "wall of separation between Church and State" comes from is Jefferson's letter? Clearly, Jefferson's letter is the source of this concept, which has been what has survived for over 200 years.

Even this Wikipedia artcle on the Establishment Clause cites Jefferson's letter. Do you have another source for the common interpretation of the First Amendment Establishment clause?

You are making a HUGE leap, with your weak arguments.

Given that this is in reply to my quoting the Preamble to the Constitution, I will say that my argument is the strongest of all, because it relies SOLELY on the Constitution, and does not need outside support to interpret it. Since the Article VI Supremacy clause says that "any Thing in the Constitution" is supreme Law of the Land, and the Preamble is a Thing in the Constitution, it should be given deference to interpretations that rely on outside support.

I have posted before that I think that SCOTUS was wrong in Minor when they said that they had to look elsewhere for the definition of natural born citizen, because the definition was right there in front of them in the Preamble. Sometimes, when one over-thinks things, one becomes blind to the obvious.

The Constitution was ordained and established to preserve liberty for the people and their posterity. Only the posterity are eligible to be the head of the country in order to secure its preservation.


102 posted on 08/01/2012 9:43:59 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 last

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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson