Replies

Jeff I would like to get your published references for Marshall, Story, and Kent as to their actual opinions/decisions on the definition of ‘natural born citizen. With due respect to your opinions I believe these men’s actual presentations would help my personal understanding.

Marshall, Story and Kent all lent their approval to Bayard's "Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."

I have been giving the publication date for this book as 1834. The first edition was actually published in 1833, with the second edition following the next year.

There were reprints over the years, including in 1840 and 1850.

The following is from the 1840 reprint of the Second Edition:

Exactly who is eligible to be President is an important, high-profile item. Even so, birthers might be able to plausibly argue that one distinguished expert had somehow missed a glaring error. But Marshall, Story AND Kent? And other distinguished jurists as well? Not a chance.

The fact is, Bayard published his book, stated with crystal clarity that "natural born citizen" meant "citizen by birth," and that anyone born a citizen overseas because he had US parents was eligible to be President.

And not one person had the slightest word of correction to say to that. Because everybody agreed.

Marshall corrected him that Congress didn't need the assent of the States to build military and post roads. They already had it. That's how carefully Marshall read Bayard's book.

Jeff thanks for the information you gave. The first thing that got my attention was the expression that the Founders had a very serious concern about foreign influence or’evils’ as noted. The second thing was the expression that the ‘citizen by birth’ precludes the possibility that any ‘foreigner’ ever to be a candidate for POTUSA. However, the crux of our reading and/or difference appears to be in the authors comments as to ‘natural born citizen’. First of all Bayard notes ‘all children of citizens who have resided in this Country though born in a foreign country’ are ‘natural born citizens. It is the wording ‘of citizens’ that locks the meaning of ‘natural born’. From my reading of the history of the dialogue at the time coupled with Bayard’s notice and warning I believe ‘of citizenS’ refers to the parents of the child and not to any ancillary combination of parents. This discussion leads me to take that according to Bayard McCain was eligible for POTUSA without any resolution by/from the Senate. The resolution was just a smokescreen for Obama’s eligibility.

Marshall, Story and Kent all lent their approval to Bayard's "Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."

What exactly did they approve? From the book's "Advertisement" which you posted above:

...their approbation of the plan of the work, and the manner of its execution; and express their opinion that it is well calculated for the attainment of the object for which it was intended.

What is the plan of the work? What is the "object for which it was intended"?

To answer those questions turn to the Preface.

What is "the plan of the work"

And indeed the book does closely follow the arrangement of the Constitution

Chapter	Title	Constitution
I	The Preamble	Preamble
II	The Legislature	Art. I
III	Of The House of Representatives	Art. I § 2
IV	The Senate	Art. I § 3
V	The Powers of Congress	Art. I § 8
VI	Limitations of the Powers of Congress	Art. I § 9
VII	Limitations of the Powers of the Individual States	Art. I § 10
VIII	The Executive	Art. II
IX	The Powers and Duties of the Executive	Art. II § 2
X	The Judiciary	Art. III
XI	Miscellaneous Subjects	Art. IV, VI
XII	The Amendments	Amend. I - X

What is the "object for which it was intended"?

The book's object is to be a short and simple exposition for young persons so they may have "a more general acquaintance with the Constitution."

It is an overstatement to claim that Marshall, Story and Kent endorse the contents in their entirety. They are not co-authors or proofreaders and, with the exception of Marshall, there is nothing to indicate they read the book.

Marshall does appear to have read the book, although at what level of scrutinty we do not know. His health began declining in 1832 and he died in 1835. As his reading of the book was during his failing health his attention may not have been as focused as during his prime.

In any event, even if each of these gentleman closely scutinized the book it is not law, nor is it presented as an authoritative book useful for "professional men"

From the Preface:

In compiling it, the author has relied principally, upon the Federalist, the Commentaries of Chancellor Kent, the Treatises of Mr. Rawle, and Mr. Sergeant, and the Reports of the Decisions of the Supreme Court.

Neither the Federalist nor the Supreme Court define "natural born citizen", Rawle has been previously discussed here as has Kent. I am not familiar with Sergeant (presumably Nathaniel Sargeant of the Massachusetts Supreme Court). Bayard offers "natural born citizen" without any citing any authority, it is his opinion and it is an obvious factual error.

The main point is that it is an overstatement to claim that Marshall, Story and Kent endorse the contents in their entirety. Rather, they lauded the plan and object of the book.