Hey Gin, I see your only contribution is to ridicule people. You called me a drone too and I asked you to put up or shut up. You shut up so I guess you’re just a big bag of hot air.
The question I asked you in a prior thread was:
Vattel wrote: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didn’t the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way?
That is the $64,000 question you people cannot answer and it is a total fail on your part.
I know you won’t give a proper answer. You can’t win a debate legitimately so you resort to insults. Nice!
Bwahahahahaha ... nice try, troll. The framers gave us the meaning of natural born and used the term in the Constitution. Vattel didn’t write the United Sates Constitution. But more than one of the men who did help write it gave a clear definition of which children have never been in question as natural born, those who have citizen parents and are born on US soil, or so sid the man who wrote the fourteenth amendment. I’m so sorry that isn’t good enough for you obamanoid trolls, but there it is. Now go suck an egg, you’ve earned it.
Because they used John Jay's suggested terminology of "natural born." Read Jay's letter. The intent is VERY clear: to exclude those owing allegiance to a foreign nation/sovereign from the very highest offices of our national government and military to prevent usurpation, which was a very real threat right after the US declared Independence.
As I posted in an earlier thread, the Framers did define natural-born in the Preamble.
Remember that writing back then was much more of a form of art than it is today. The Constitution is a tapestry, with each part supporting many other parts. Pull out one thread, and the rest begin to fall apart.
Back to my archives...
A nation's posterity is its natural-born children. They are the next generation who carries forward the culture that defines being an American. When the Framers said that they established the Constitution to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to... our posterity," they meant to create a nation that can be handed down to their children, and their children's children.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.
If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.
Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
-PJ