Posted on 09/06/2012 12:35:47 PM PDT by kreitzer
The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
As I have pointed out numerous times, William Rawle was the son of a British Loyalist during the War of Independence, and he was sent to study law in England. His training is in English law as taught in England, not Natural Law as was taught in American Universities of that time. Rawle is a poor choice for explaining AMERICAN citizenship law. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Marshall is a much better authority upon which to base an understanding. He said this:
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
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
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
I’ve proven you and your ilk wrong on this several times, as you well know.
Explain the case of James McClure. Why did the US Ambassador to France (John Armstrong) refuse to recognize his claim of American citizenship even though he was born in South Carolina? Why did the US Government allow the man to languish in French custody for three years if they thought he was a U.S. Citizen? It is because the official position of the US Government (Under James Madison at the time) was that the man was NOT a US Citizen, regardless of the fact that he was born in South Carolina.
There are few Equal in understanding of the US Constitution to James Madison, and if it was *HIS* official position that the man was not a citizen, why should we give a crap what any other so-called authority thinks?
In 1807, Madison was furiously writing to England protesting the impressment of American citizens into the British Navy. One would think that someone with so much concern about holding Americans against their will could have instructed his Ambassador John Armstrong to get James McClure released.
While we're on this subject, John Armstrong was a delegate to the Continental congress in 1787-1788, so he d*mned well OUGHT to know what was meant by the term "Natural born citizen." He concluded that James McClure wasn't even a "citizen", let alone a "natural born citizen."
It is likely what the Courts would rule, but they would be wrong. I do not find the notion of our courts being wrong to be at all surprising. We have the Kelo decision, the Exclusionary rule, the Miranda ruling, Roe v Wade, and so on.
The Courts being wrong is a very common circumstance nowadays.
It is likely what the Courts would rule, but they would be wrong. I do not find the notion of our courts being wrong to be at all surprising. We have the Kelo decision, the Exclusionary rule, the Miranda ruling, Roe v Wade, and so on.
The Courts being wrong is a very common circumstance nowadays.
If you argue and listen to arguments for a living, as a lawyer or judge does, you may not want to waste time in your off-hours arguing with amateurs or cranks or listening to their theories.
I would not think that it should be any great difficulty for a knowledgable judge to explain the meaning of a long used legal term. Saying he doesn't know is admitting incompetence in his legal understanding. Would he be so confused on the meaning of the words "right to bear arms" ?
>> “The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen” <<
.
Wow! - It doesn’t define any other terms used therein either, and they are all to be taken in the common usage of the era.
If it meant your definition, they would not have needed their escape clause for themselves; most of them were born on the soil of the nation created by the Declaration of Independence.
True
Right back attcha dude. *I've* studied this. I was just going over writings by James Madison, William Pickney, John Armstrong, and James Monroe early today.
Why did James Madison allow James McClure to remain in French Custody for three years? (Held by the French as an English Prisoner of War From April 12, 1807 - November 27, 1811)
If being born in the U.S. was the only requirement for citizenship, Madison would have issued immediate orders to Ambassador Armstrong to have the man released immediately!
The McClure incident was the very first case in which the Berlin Decree by Emperor Napoleon was used against the United States. (US Ship carrying English Cargo) I doubt Madison accidentally overlooked Mr. McClures situation.
Ah no...
Not if their parenbts werent American citizens when they were born...
To be NBC both the parents must be citizens at the time of the birth.....
“under the jurisdiction of” means more than an illegal alien in heavy labor just being pushed or rolling across the southern border in order to drop an anchor baby...
There are two ways to get rid of Obama. One way is to vote him out by supporting Romney.
The other way is to start a lawsuit and hope that Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sotomyer , and Breyer and the other liberals agree with you and throw Obama off the ballot. Good luck with that.
“No one gives a crap about your stupid court cases.”
Actually, every sane person cares about what the US Supreme Court has ruled. That is why all 50 states agree I’m right. That is why 535 out of 535 members of Congress agree. And that is why every court agrees. Because I am right.
“Explain the case of James McClure.”
In 1811, he was arrested and held as a British citizen. He had been born in America, left at age 10 where he lived in England.
As Secretary of State, James Monroe wrote to France to assure them he was, in fact, a US citizen and thus should be released:
“Sir
I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.
I have [the honor]
James Monroe”
Please note the justification for calling him a US citizen: “was born in Charleston since the Revolution”...
Every child I know rebels in some way against their parents. In your mind I guess that means they HATE their parents and disregard the values they were taught? They would adopt French law instead?
The principles of natural law based on the existing philosophers of the time happened to be Written in French, but Vattel's principles were not describing French law, he was describing a theoretical ideal form of government which he believe ought to follow the principles which he laid forth. That French law happened to coincide on one particular point is irrelevant. Vattel was Swiss by the way. He happened to write in French because during that time period, French was the language of Diplomacy.
Your ignorance in making the assumption which you did indicates that you really haven't studied this information.
Are you freakin serious?
Why would anyone remain loyal to a country who treated them like crap?
They didn't. That's why they created new laws regarding American citizenship that look nothing like English laws on Subjectude.
Most of the founders were born or had roots in England.
Thomas Jefferson’s mother was English.
Can I be more clear?
I doubt it. You are currently playing the role of the ignorant little child lecturing the Historian about affairs of which you know not. Clarity is the least of your problem.
I suspect you know less than 1/10th of my own personal knowledge of this part of History, but I encourage you to learn a great deal more, starting with the affair of the ship "Horizon" and the subsequent situation of James McClure, who though having been born in South Carolina in 1785, was rejected as an American citizen by his government because his English father did not naturalize until two months AFTER he was born.
Study up.
This is what I understand to be the correct meaning of the 14th amendment. Read the debate on the 14th amendment, they make it quite clear that it should only apply to those who are here legally, and with intentions of staying.
Sometimes, it's hard enough to not tell people to go and **** themselves.
Larry's effect on people may not be what he thinks it is.
Look at how he sneers at the "revered" Justice Scalia at the beginning of the paragraph.
Tell me that kind of contempt doesn't come out in personal encounters.
So I repeat, if you're ambushed in your free time by a kook who apparently doesn't think much of you, all you may want to do is just get out of the encounter as quickly as possible.
I disagree. The framers wanted to ensure that the singular executive of the United States — the president — had no allegiance to any country other than the United States. Native-born is born in the US or having US citizenship from one of their parents. Native-born does not exclude joint citizenship (or eligibility for such) of another country. Natural born citizen, a qualification placed only on the office of the President, does exclude such. Not only was the present resident of the White House eligible for British citizenship, he has been eligible for Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship.
“the subsequent situation of James McClure, who though having been born in South Carolina in 1785, was rejected as an American citizen by his government because his English father did not naturalize until two months AFTER he was born. “
Actually, the US government said he WAS a US citizen, based on his birth in the US.
Wrong. He was arrested April 12, 1807. Get your facts straight.
As Secretary of State, James Monroe wrote to France to assure them he was, in fact, a US citizen and thus should be released:
“Sir
I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.
I have [the honor] James Monroe”
I am aware of this. That is why I cited the November 27, 1811 date before our government took any action. They let him stew in French custody for three years and some months. Even then, they only put forth the claim that he was a US Citizen based on the Affidavits of Citizenship obtained from South Carolina alleging that he possessed South Carolina citizenship which convinced the US Government to act. They knew he was born in South Carolina from the very beginning, yet they chose to NOT ACT.
As pointed out by James Madison in his letter, The man's claim to citizenship was contingent upon what was the law in South Carolina, and specifically what the naturalization statute of South Carolina said regarding existing offspring of a man who has been naturalized.
Without those documents from South Carolina, and the Certification by an Associate Supreme Court Justice, the US Government would have continued to ignore the plight of James McClure.
The entire point, which you are too stubborn to comprehend, is that being born in South Carolina was not enough for US Citizenship as far as James Madison was concerned. James McClure had to be grandfathered in as a South Carolina citizen (and therefore through South Carolina laws) or he would not possess Federal Citizenship at all.
This example is a complete contradiction to your theory. If Madison believed birth in the US was all that was required, he would have acted immediately. He obviously did not so believe.
"Under the jurisdiction" means having to pay your parking tickets. Foreign diplomats in the US do not have to pay their parking tickets. They enjoy diplomatic immunity. They are not subject to US jurisiction, and, hence, any children they may have while residing the US are not anchor babies. Other foreigners in the US are subject to US jurisdiction, which is why, under the 14th Amendment, children born here to them are anchor babies.
No they did not. They explicitly said he was NOT an American citizen because his FATHER was not a citizen at the time he was born. They later relented (three years later) when South Carolina claimed him as a citizen under South Carolina law, but not before the proof came from South Carolina.
As I mentioned before, Madison WROTE the constitution, and John Armstrong was a member of the Continental Congress when the Constitution was debated.
BOTH of them said he wasn't a citizen of the US unless he could prove he was a citizen under the laws of South Carolina.
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.