Skip to comments.Rubio and Birthright Citizenship
Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by Menehune56
Those conservatives who argue against "birthright citizenship" have just been thrown under the same bus as the "birthers" -- whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.
The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the "birthers," we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates -- by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Why would I care about dicta from a case that made someone a U.S. citizen via the 14th Amendment.
The issue is natural born citizen, not 14th Amendment citizen.
Dicta, what is that? One definition says, Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court’s opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. The plural of dictum.
So I guess the judge should just stick to one topic. He cannot have an opinion on anything else. Is that how you live your life?
I see how you operate. You ignore dicta or opinions that dont appeal to you or help push your agenda but would gladly do so if it were to your advantage. Nice!
There has been plenty of arguments presented here that totally blow your theories away yet you refuse to comment on them. What does that say? Rather than dismantle these arguments you go off on a tangent. But then again, I guess when the facts dont support you then you do what you gotta do.
The court used the dicta in an improper and political way for the purpose of quashing and deligitimizing the plaintiff’s case while disallowing discovery and trial on the merits of the case. It was just this kind of judicial misconduct which prompted some of the sates shortly after gaining independence to legislate new procedures requiring a trail by jury rather than before a magistrate or judge. In the years since, the judiciary has clawed back some of its more dictatorial and political perogatives possessed before the Revolution.
Thank you for answering the question. You start off by stating, “The father for purposes of determining citizenship is typically going to be the legal father, and not necessarily the birth father.” How do we know the legal father is a U.S. citizen? No where did I read that the father’s BC must be presented.
The truth is WhiskeyX, we really can’t prove our father’s citizenship without presenting a BC. All we get is our own BC or certificate of naturalization. If you have a BC that shows birth in the U.S. you are a natural born citizen. The other means you were made a citizen by law and therefore ineligible to become president. It is not a complicated issue.
I and others have posted many authorative statements regarding NBC clearly stating that all persons born on U.S. soil are native and or natural born citizens of this country. Why won’t you accept the fact that it is the VAST majority opinion with no supportive facts on your side?
President Grant said this and you are probably familiar with it:
Among the highest duties of the Government is that to afford firm, sufficient, and equal protection to all its citizens, whether native-born or naturalized. Care should be taken that a right, carrying with it such support from the Government, should not be fraudulently obtained, and should be bestowed only upon full proof of a compliance with the law; http://stateoftheunion.onetwothree.net/texts/18741207.html
Against my better judgment here is a more pertinent quote in language that ANYONE can understand:
Great empires and humble nations alike have made similar choices in determining who will be citizens. The world’s nations emphasize one or the other of only two methods for determining citizenship at birth. Most nations assign citizenship at birth according to the citizenship of at least one of the parents. A few nations, including the United States, assign citizenship on the circumstance of place of birth—within the territorial boundaries of the nation—regardless of the citizenship of the parents. While the United States also permits the children of its citizens born abroad to be considered U.S. citizens from birth, the predominant mode of birthright citizenship in this country, and the only one grounded in the Constitution, [FN1] is that which bestows citizenship upon anyone born on United States soil.
That is the very first paragraph.
Oops, forgot the referenhttp://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htmce:
Which is exactly right.
IMHO, the biggest confusion comes because people nowadays automatically think of the federal government as 'sovereign' in it's relationship with the States, and thus can 'dictate' Law just like the King.
In fact, the opposite was true.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject.
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
Before a foreign national could fall under the naturalization rule, he must first be made a denizen , or legal alien, by the Sovereign authority of the State of his residence.
Not to mention that this residency, denizenship and naturalization process does nothing other than to create a positive law citizen.
As you've said, only Natural Law can define a natural born citizen.
Sorry about this. This is the reference:
that's right, it's in the very first paragraph.
And since you didn't have the coustesy to SOURCE IT, I went and found it myself.
There are 2 returns on the ENTIRE WEB on Google:
and they both lead to the same article:
Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities Winter 1997
Seriously? A 1997 interpretation of a case from 1608?
All I can say is-
Your St. George Tucker reference started off with this:
“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. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.
Then it goes all gobbledygook and very difficult to understand. But I dont think it is important to understand because it talks about various state rules, etc.
The issue at hand is the United States Constitution and its declaration that only Natural Born Citizens are eligible for the office of president. Not interested in getting into each individual states laws and customs, the framers wanted someone who was physically born on U.S. soil, at least 35 years old and a resident for the previous 14 years certainly enough time to be devoted to the country. That length of time would certainly satisfy Jays concern.
When coupled with all the other evidence available I am 100% convinced that this republic does not require citizen parents to be it’s president. See quoted reference to MamaTexas. http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htm.
“In other words, whether by order of the Sovereign or by act of the Parliament, a person was subject made to have the same or nearly the rights of another person who was actually a natural born subject by virtue being subject born than being subject made.”
Correct. Hence the term naturalization. However, that does not mean that those born in the country were not born natural born subjects (or citizens).
Those naturalized attain all the rights of a NBC except they cannot run for President. They remain naturalized citizens. But those born in the country ARE natural born citizens (or subjects).
Seriously? A 1997 interpretation of a case from 1608?
All I can say is-
Sorry you had to look it up. I did post it later. So what is wrong with a 1997 interpretation? It was certainly before Obama came upon the scene so there is no bias to it plus your opinions are of 2012 so does what you think become irrelevant? What about what Grant said? What about what the other congressmen and senators said with references provided by myself and others on this thread that support the NO PARENT rule for citizenship?
"Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint is more of a political manifesto than a verified pleading."
A pro se case. You've really got something substantial there.
LOL! States Sovereign RIGHTS, not 'rules'.
Here, another question presents itself: if the states, individually, possess the right of making denizens of aliens, can a person so made a denizen of a particular state, hold an office under the authority of such state? And I think it unquestionable that each state hath an absolute, and uncontrolable power over this subject, if disposed to exercise it. For every state must be presumed to be the exclusive judge of the qualifications of it's own officers and servants: for this is a part of their sovereignty which they can not be supposed to have intended ever to give up.
Also odd you have trouble with it since it's written in plain English.
St. George Tucker, was in the Revolutionary War and rose to the rank of Colonel. He communicated regularly with members of Congress, a fact proven by doing a search here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.htmlfor the exact phrase St. George Tucker, bring up ONE HUNDRED returns.
His Annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [of which the view of the Constitution is a part] was one of the reasons President Madison appointed him a Judge of the Virginia District Court, and his annotated Blackstone volumes are among the leather bound tomes found behind every practicing lawyers desk in the country.
So no, I dont think there is much comparison between Tuckers words and a googly-eyed professor because she joined the Emory Law faculty
. in 1995
There's a rather interesting section titled "The Jus Soli and the Jus Sanguinis" just after the first section.
My apologies. I should have known you would look up the source yourself when it didn’t pan out.
“Thank you for answering the question. You start off by stating, The father for purposes of determining citizenship is typically going to be the legal father, and not necessarily the birth father. How do we know the legal father is a U.S. citizen? No where did I read that the fathers BC must be presented.”
Different jurisdictions issuing birth certificates have different requirements for evidence of identity and citizenship. As a 2000 U.S. Government report titled Birth Certificate Fraud had to say, birth certificate fraud is very rarely ever prosecuted or punished even when discovered and reported. Prosecutors and courts almost always refuse to enforce the laws in regard to birth certificate fraud.
“The truth is WhiskeyX, we really cant prove our fathers citizenship without presenting a BC. All we get is our own BC or certificate of naturalization. If you have a BC that shows birth in the U.S. you are a natural born citizen. The other means you were made a citizen by law and therefore ineligible to become president. It is not a complicated issue.”
A birth certificate “proves” nothing at all, especially with so much widespread birth certificate fraud, identity theft, and near complete absence of law enforcement. A birth certificate is nothing more than a document used to establish a rebuttable presumption of the informaton presented on the certificate, but the information can be challenged and impeached in administrative proceedings and/or hearings in a court of law. Like a driver’s license and other forms of identification, it can be and sometimes is revoked, invalidated, or amended. Likewise, claims of U.S. citizenship are revoked or invalidated due to identity and eligibility fraud.
“I and others have posted many authorative statements regarding NBC clearly stating that all persons born on U.S. soil are native and or natural born citizens of this country. Why wont you accept the fact that it is the VAST majority opinion with no supportive facts on your side?”
Your claims are gross falsehoods. For example, you say: “all persons born on U.S. soil are native and or natural born citizens of this country.” As you certainly already well know, the children born of foreign diplomats do not come under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore they do not qualify for U.S. citizenship. Likewise U.S. Nationals are not U.S. Citizens despite being born within the jurisdiciton of the United States. Spectacularly false is your saying “ no supportive facts on your side” in the face of centuries of legal precedent in which English Acts of Parliament clearly stated they were taking persons who were not natural born subjects at birth and were making them equal in rights to natural born citizens at birth. There are also the centuries of legal precedent in other Continental Eropean jurisdictions in which the child of alien parents were not eligible to be regarded as a subject or a citizen, but was instead an alien born, as described by Vattel, Blacksone, Coke, and others through the centuries back to the Roman Republic and earlier.
@Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president
"It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.," said Polly Price, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta who specializes in immigration and citizenship.
Price said natural born was likely drawn from the concept that anyone born in what was once a colony was considered a subject and parental status was not a factor.
What a coincidence! Her commenting on the very issue we're talking about here.
@Q&A: A look at the origin of Black History Month
Since George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico, how was he able to run for U.S. president in 1968?
George Romney's parents Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt were natives of Utah and U.S. citizens, but were living in Mexico at the time of his birth, making him a U.S. citizen and eligible to run for president.
"The fact that your parents are U.S. citizens makes you a U.S. citizen at birth, no matter where you were born," Emory law professor Polly J. Price told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, "No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President," and most scholars agree that the Founding Fathers would have considered a person born overseas to American parents a U.S. citizen, Price said.
"This makes you a citizen just as much as someone born in Texas," she said. George Romney ran for the Republican nomination in 1968 but dropped out of the race. Richard Nixon won the nomination and was elected president.
How that got in on a Q&A on Black History Month is beyond me.
*77 The Jus Soli and the Jus Sanguinis
Before examining the issues in Calvin's Case, it is useful to have some understanding of current methods for assigning citizenship or nationality at birth. The territorial rule derived from Calvin's Case rendered the status of British colonists different from that of colonists of other European countries. Calvin's Case led to what is today known in international law as the jus soli, the rule under which nationality is acquired by the mere fact of birth within the territory of a state. [FN13] The other great rule for assigning nationality at birth, the jus sanguinis, is identified with the civil law. It holds that, regardless of the place of birth, nationality is acquired by descent following the status of at least one parent (usually the father). [FN14]
I didn't make any point for you. I merely pointed out what Price wrote.
So my question is...why didn't you put that in your first reply to begin with if you agree with it so strongly?
You should be. Some of the states following Independence chose to follow the French model and did not confer citizenship upon the child born in the state with alien parents. Consequently the child was not a citizen at birth or after birth without reaching the age of majority and naturalizing as a citizen of the state and thereby the United States. Likewise, the states which conferred state and thereby U.S. citizenship upon a child born in the state with alien parents did so by the authority of a public law which made the child an unnatural born U.S. Citizen treated as if they are a natural born citizen in the same manner as described in the 18th Century Nationality Acts. Whenever reading a source which uses the term, “natural born citizen,” you have to keep in mind the usage was imprecise to the extent of which it fails to mention that it includes unnatural born citizens such as aliens naturalized after birth in some cases, aliens made as if natural born at birth by authority of Royal decree or legislative statute, and the true natural born citizen child in the state jurisdiction with citizen parents. The key issue determining the natural born subject or citizen status is whether or not the child is born with an obligation for allegiance to more than the sovereign or polity of the place of birth.
Your source is oversimplified to the poit of being incompetent.
That's the issue though. The paper is based on an entirely false premise.
The United States, Great Britain, and many Latin American countries traditionally have favored the jus soli over the jus sanguinis as a rule for acquisition of citizenship by birth.
Laws are defined legal procedures. She speaks of 'traditions', then tries to imply they impact law.
How can a naturalized at birth citizen be 'favored' over a natural-born one, anyway? If that were true, why the enumerated qualification of natural-born in the Presidential Article?
Until the 14th Amendment, where, despite Constitutional enumeration, Congress gave itself the power to naturalize citizens on a national basis and bypass the Sovereign States, there was no question concerning citizenship, it was either inherited by blood [natural law] or obtained via the Constitutionally specified legal procedure [naturalized].
I can also find nothing about this article that says it is even peer reviewed. It's just an article in a legal publication by a law school professor.
That's very kind, but the apology isn't necessary.
BTW - please DO ignore that long winded post I just did.
I can also find nothing about this article that says it is even peer reviewed. It's just an article in a legal publication by a law school professor.
Just more distraction and the usual tactics, as is typical, of the originating poster.
Still wanting just to make a bloody mess of things.
Please see post #224.
That's what I'm seeing, too.
I read it and replied before I read your reply there.
Of course I know that - I have cited references regarding that:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." /Senator Jacob Howard as transcribed in the Globe.
But what does the FIRST sentence say?
You then go on to say, "Spectacularly false is your saying no supportive facts on your side" and then you list the very same false stuff, none of which is relevant!!
What is it you don't understand about Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis? The United States is Jus Soli - not Jus Sanguinis as much as you'd like to believe it - it just ain't so as attested to by hundreds of authorities. You cannot refute that there are ONLY two types of citizens, U.S. born and Naturalized.
If Obama was born in Hawaii he is Jus Soli, natural born citizen. As much as we detest the guy, that is the fact. There is no judge in the U.S. that will say otherwise and you know it but you keep beating up that dead horse.
As much as I like the mental stimulation, I'm old, getting tired already at (12 noon) so I do believe I'm done here.
I didn’t use the source in the beginning because I just became aware of it. I always believe Jus Soli was the governing factor regarding citizenship. Geez Louise, give me a break! Seriously though, the more I dig into this the more convinced I am that I am right and I receive positive reinforcement from the fact that no court in the land will come down on the side of Jus Sanguinis.
Granted but the majority of the states were Jus Soli but once our republic was formed the Constitution rules, right? I mean, I’m not a history buff but I’ve read enough to be assured that when the framers said, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” and since there is no one alive who fits that category now, that pretty much means they were grandfathered in and a new beginning arose. I’m not sure about that but I am assured of Jus Soli. I’m worn out now so perhaps this isn’t making sense.
I really need to run errands for now.
Trying to post and get ready at the same time just made me FReepmail New Jersey Realist with my apology to you for the double post.
In it, I also questioned how much evidence you thought it will take to get him to see the truth.
I'll check back with the thread later.
Yes. Exactly. According to Vatell McCain would be eligible. According to birthers who say they follow Vatell..... not so much.
"Subject to the jurisdiction" means whether or not you are obligated to obey American law. Illegal aliens are subject to American law (whether it's actually enforced is a separate question). Illegals are supposed to pay their parking tickets. They are "subject to the jurisdiction".
However, not all foreigners have to pay their parking tickets.
If you have funny tags like the double-parked Caddy, you don't have to pay your parking tickets.
But your kids born here are not automatic citizens.
Basically, the only aliens in the US who are not subject to its jurisdiction are diplomats that's what diplomatic immunity means and members of foreign forces on US soil (last seen in 1812, I believe).
Naturalized citizens will never be eligible. There is an age and residency requirement and the citizen must be a natural born citizen. We can all agree on that I hope. Where we part is on if a citizen at birth is natural born or not or if you are attempting to carve out a third type of current citizen.
I just took a quick nap but let's get back into this...the crux of the matter if you will.
I can cite quotes such as:
"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "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." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).
or: "Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)
which proves my point that our founders are in the jus soli citizenship mode as opposed to the jus sanguinis. You on the other hand assert that NBC requires citizen parents, which directly contradicts the above quotes, yet you fail to produce ONE single authoritative quote that can prove your assertion without going into a lot of goggledegook.
This is a pretty simple matter, so simple in fact that the framers didnt even bother to explain it. I hate to be so repetitious in these threads but I want to see a declarative statement such as, it is the policy of this nation that in order to be a NBC, you must have citizen parents. Give me something like that and Ill join your side. And while you are at it, also provide evidence that the framers used Vattel specifically on the citizenship issue. If you can't do that then you have no standing on the issue. I hope you are both smart enough to know I'm sending you on a fools mission (and I mean that respectfully).
They will if and when we allow your misinterpretation of the “natural born citizen” terminology.
You argue that simply because a person who was born on U.S. soil with alien parents must be a natural born citizen because you've read references to such persons being labeled as natural born citizens. You reject and disregard the English Nationality Acts and statutes I provided to demonstrate the usage of the “natural born citizen” label for such a person was a form of shorthand terminology and courtesy to indicate an alien child was made a citizen by public law at the time of birth and thereby afforded the courtesy of being referred to as a natural born citizen despite not actually being born a natural born citizen.
Now consider this reality. In 1576, Elizabeth I made a royal decree which started the popularity of aliens naturalizing as English subjects, rather than doing so by seeking denization. Despite these aliens having been born in a foreign soil with allegiance to a perpetual foreign sovereign, the English government and legal commentators of the period nonetheless labeled such naturalized subjects as “natural born subjects” of England as a courtesy.
So, the application of your principle of the “natural born citizen” to any class of persons who historically have been referred to as “natural born citizens” would necessarily result in naturalized citizens also being referred to as “natural born citizens.”
I'll get to your other post soon, but I answered this question in other posts long before you asked it.
The answer is that, until Obama, the birth narrative of our presidents was never in question. Presidents came from prominent families whose backgrounds were well-known.
We do have the issue of Arthur, but it appears that Arthur did an Obama by hiding some family records. In Arthur's time, it was easier to do because the ability to cross-check information was not as easy as with the internet. And maybe, people took it less seriously because Arthur was running for Vice-President and people didn't think that the worst-case might happen. They do now.
Obama hid all of his records, including his birth documents, his school documents, his passport documents, and even his prior legislative documents, and in its place he offered his own self-serving autobiographical narrative which we're now learning contains "composites" of his life in place of actual people and events.
So, that was then and this is now. How do YOU prove it if you were to run for president? The first thing would be to establish your bona fides through public vetting via earlier elective office. People don't usually saunter up to the top position in American politics without first building up a political legacy of elective office.
In Obama's case, politically he avoided vetting in Chicago by using technicalities to drive his opponents off of the ballots, giving him essentially uncontested wins. In 2008, his campaign used the nation's "white guilt" to take many issues off of the table, including Obama's past associations and his unusual birth circumstance (made more unusual by his refusal to be transparent about it). There was, no doubt, Republican fatigue that was stoked in 2006, and played to maximum effect in 2008, but the Democrat's chose Obama over Clinton in the primaries also on the wave of "white guilt," as evidenced by the inside-the-party fight over the super-delegates. There was also the chicanery by the unions in the caucus states which Obama won, vs. the voting states that Clinton won.
I think that Obama's was a perfect-storm of circumstances that won't happen again.
Yes. Just because the law referred to them as natural born- how dare I consider them natural born! That was just a “courtesy “! How dare I interpret the law and the Constitution as written instead of how you want it to be written!!! LOL!!!!
But wait! I was asking specifically about requirements to become POTUS. You are dancing around that with your response to my question regarding your original post where you claim:
"One need not have any citizen parents to be a natural born citizen - as is the case with Marco Rubio."
Please answer my question about the specific requirements to become POTUS. If we agree that according to the Constitution, only a natural born citizen can be POTUS, and according to you, anyone born in the US IS a natural born citizen.... then that is what you are saying! I already referenced the age restriction. So, back to you.
I am speaking exactly about POTUS eligibility requirements. I repeat my post to you verbatim.
I am speaking exactly about POTUS eligibility requirements. I repeat my post to you verbatim.
I hope you are both smart enough to know I'm sending you on a fools mission (and I mean that respectfully).
A fool's errand? You ask for that which nobody is able to provide as it doesn't exist in the manner you desire.
That's why you've framed your request in the manner in which you have.
I say: Why are you blind to the quotations I put in my post?Instead of answering my question, you choose to parry with a question of your own. Therefore, I will answer your question and then put words in your mouth for you.
The question is still about original intent of the natural-born clause. The Congressmen that you quoted gave their opinions in 1866, 1869, and 1872. Paine, a Founder, wrote contemporaneously about the Constitution in 1791.
You earlier said, "As far as I know Paine had no direct input into the Constitution. While I respect him, he had opinions just like everyone else." I give Paine's interpretation of original intent more weight, given that he's a Founder who was there at the time. His opinions, along with Adams', Franklin's, and Jefferson's, were original Founding opinions, not historical interpretations of original intent.
Regarding Paine's comparisons vs, it's neglect later on during natural-born debates, I can only surmise that it was forgotten history, that is, that the various Congressmen, law clerks, and Justices failed to recall his statements on the American Constitution. The Rights Of Man was not written to be a chronicle of the Constitution (like the Federalist Papers), it was written to support the French in their own Revolution. Paine was tried by England in absentia and sentenced to death over the book because of the things he said about England.
But still, even if its purpose was not to define the Constitution, Paine's comparison in the book to European forms of government are still chronicles of the Framers' original intent by a Founding Father, and should be recognized as such. It should be given the same Constitutional relevence as Jefferson's letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson's letter has become the source of "wall of separation between church and state," even though Jefferson was not a Framer of the Constitution either.
To the quotes themselves. What we will see is a mixing of the debate of citizenry vs. the added requirement for being president. I will argue that "natural-born" is not a definition of citizen, but a further requirement (akin to age and residency) that is added to being a citizen, that is, being a citizen of two citizen parents. The intent is not to define a new category of citizenship, but to define a criterion of presidency that is applied to citizens seeking the office. This is what Paine states.
John Bingham: With all due respect to Rep. Bingham, it reads like typical Congressional hyperbole in defense of his bill. Language like "Who does not know..." and later "There is no one can hesitate a moment about it who..." is typical debate rhetoric intended to put the opposer on the defensive. The fact that he was the principle author of the 14th amendment, which was ratified just the year before this quote, reinforces my opinion that he was flaunting his success.
The Bingham quote does support my point about Paine's quote in that Bingham said the above in debate about women's suffrage, not citizenship. Paine defined natural-born in debate about the French Revolution, not the Constitution. Why do you accept Bingham's incidental quote, but not Paine's?
Senator Morrill: I do not know the amendment being debated, but it is similar in vein to Rep. Bingham's. The discussion is if citizenry and not presidential criteria, and is incidental to the core amendment being debated.
Senator Trumbill: Here we get to a remark about presidential criteria, but it begins dishonestly. "...and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen." He substitutes his own phrase "native-born citizen" in place of the actual Constitutional language "natural-born citizen," and then proceeds from there. That aside, this seems to be a debate about the citizenship status of former slaves, not of presidential criteria.
The debate is about the original intent of the natural-born clause. I say, supported by Thomas Paine, that the natural-born clause is a further criterion, apart from citizenship, to become president. You say that the natural-born clause is a definition of citizenship itself and cannot be separated. You offer quotations regarding citizenship, but not regarding presidential criteria.
We both agree that people born in the United States of single-citizen parents are citizens. We even agree that people born in the United States of two non-citizens are citizens. I do not know if you support legislation removing the "anchor-baby" citizenship, such that tourists can no longer time their travels to the United States to coincided with childbirth in order to birth a United States citizen, but that is not important to this debate.
Do you agree that "natural-born" can be an added criterion that citizens must qualify in order to be president? Not "is a," but "can be?" Or do you, as I suspect, link "natural-born" solely to citizen definition in a way that cannot be separated as an additional qualification to be president apart from citizenship?
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI says that the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land" and "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The "natural-born" clause is a "Thing in the Constitution," and cannot be ignored. It cannot be replaced with the phrase "native-born" and then proceed as if "native-born" is the supreme law of the land.
To reconcile the two, "natural-born" must be seen as an additional criterion to be president that is applied after a candidate passes the citizenship test, as Paine wrote in The Rights Of Man.