Posted on 01/31/2012 4:03:01 PM PST by sourcery
Rawle was a founding member of the “Society of Polical Inquiries”, a society formed to discuss the science of government. The Society was formed in February, 1787. Ben Franklin was the President and Thomas Paine wrote the by-laws. Rawle was a member of the committe of papers. The society met twice a month at Franklin’s house. Other members included Governour and Robert Morris, James Wilson, Benjamin Rush. Rawle presented a essay on immigration at the April 20th, 1787 meeting.
So it is likely he had some knowledge about the Framers intentions.
So as you pointed out earlier if everyone agreed there would be no need for a Constitution.
At that time the citizenship of the wife followed that of the husband. The husband and wife were a single political entity.
This is no longer the case with regard to citizenship or suffrage.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the parents had a unity of citizenship. In my opinion we should continue to abide by that standard.
People "born in the United States" are born to parents who are either citizens or aliens.
Which citizens "born in the United States" are "natural born citizens", the children of citizens or the children of aliens? Or both?
Article II explicitly requires a difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen"
If the citizenship of the parents is not the determining factor between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", I want to know what that factor is.
Absent any other plausible claim as to what is the determining factor between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", the answer must be that "natural born citizen" means citizens born from citizen parents since it would be irrational to grant to the children of aliens, and deny to the children of citizens, the privilege of eligibility for the Office of President.
Until there is a plausible claim as to what factor other than the citizenship of the parents determines between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", the "US birth = natural born" position is absurd.
This from Merriam-Webster is also worth notice: Natural - begotten as distinguished from adopted; being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption (emphasis added)
Bump just so I can find it again
I may work that reasoning in the next version of the essay. Thanks.
Someone directed me to this essay as I needed some authoritative words on the meaning of NBC. I hope you don’t mind if I post it on another forum (freepmail me if you want to know where), attributed to you on FR, of course.
No problem.
Another placemark so I don’t lose this thread!
It’s taking me forever to format it properly especially because I’m a techtard.
Reference: Obama's Real Father Exposed!
Unless something changes, that means that I may not be producing or publishing an updated version of this essay.
obumpa
I think this may qualify as ‘spam’ at this stage in our FR evolution. And what a lengthy can of spam it is!
The requirements for the presidency are:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. “
natural born citizen
35 years of age
14 years a US resident.
The last requirement is irreconcilable with some definitions of natural born citizen.
It doesn’t specify which 14 years have to be resident and which 21 years can be non-resident.
A woman gives birth 1 second before her plane leaves US air space. She is a US citizen and her husband is a US citizen.
The Child lives his next 20 years 11 months in Iran training as a mullah.
He returns to the US and acquires 14 years and 1 month of residency.
On the other hand, a person could be born overseas of one US parent and immediately fly with his parents to the US and live an entire qualifying period of 35 years in the US.
And not be eligible according to some to the presidency. Weird.
All Natural Born Citizens must be born non-caesarian. Breech births are only considered NBC, if the doctor, wet nurse or other was shown to have moved the baby into that position prior to birth. Babies who survived the abortion process will not be considered NBC due to the intent of the parent. In-vitro fertilization will in no instance be considered as NBC. Afro-Americans due to their self proclaimed dual citizenship shall also be banned from NBC.
Your argument works just as well against any definition of ‘natural born citizen.’ Or even against any requirement for citizenship at all.
It does seem to me that the 14 years residency/35 years of age is a bit of a conundrum.
If citizenship by blood is assumed, that would sort of make sense of only 14 years residency. Born overseas, returns to the US by age 21 and lives 14 years in the USA.
If citizenship by place of birth is assumed, then birth in the USA followed by any combination of months and years out of 35 that total 14 would lead to eligibility for the presidency,
But one has to then realize that eligibility can be revoked for one born to 2 US citizens in the USA if too much of their time is spent overseas. However, the odd circumstance of the person born in the USA and one day later and for the next 21 years in Iran training to be a mullah, followed by 14 years residency has that person eligible for the presidency.
Was that residency rule more likely to have been enacted to bring an overseas birth home, or more likely to get qualifying years under the belt of a person born in the USA of 2 citizen parents?
Just me, but it makes more sense to me that it was intended to bring an overseas blood citizen home.
One would have to interpret the intent of the NBC requirement based on the realities of international travel (and especially ‘permanent’ relocation of domicile) in 1787.
This post and your essay are clear and detailed should someone want to understand this issue more fully.
Interesting how we humans are our own destructive agents of entropy, choosing to create disorder from order by diluting the purity of the strict rules and definitions that benefit and protect us when they get in the way of our whims of the moment.
Franklin warned us when he said "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Bmk
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.