Posted on 01/02/2024 6:27:51 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who served as managing editor of Reuters from 2011 to 2016, Paul Ingrassia, has reignited the fiery debate over what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the U.S. Constitution—a debate with significant implications for potential presidential candidate Nikki Haley.
Published on American Greatness, Mr. Ingrassia, a Law Clerk, a two-time Claremont Fellow, and a member of President Trump’s National Economic Council, meticulously examined the constitutional provision that has been at the heart of eligibility controversies involving political figures from John McCain to Kamala Harris.
At the core of his argument is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which Ingrassia insists unambiguously mandates that only “natural born citizens” of the United States are eligible to assume the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states, “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.”
The distinction between “natural born citizen” and “birthright citizenship” is central to Ingrassia’s analysis. The former term, he reminds us, is expressly reserved for those born on American soil to U.S. citizen parents, a requirement not emulated for other federal offices. This stringent criterion traces back to the Founding Fathers’ fears of foreign influence at the highest level of government.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Vattel wrote a book on the Law of Nations. The Law of Nations was the archaic term for International Law. International Law is a body of law that grew up by custom and usage between nations. It's only application is between two or more nations. It has no application to the domestic law of any nation.
U.S. citizenship determinations are not made in the Hague.
“Obama - even though he served up a forged birth certificate in my view
Your view of the Hawaii state document is irrelevant. It evidenced the proper signature and seal of the State of Hawaii.
U.S. Const., Art. 4, Sec 1
Article IVSection 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
As long as the State of Hawaii attests to the authenticity of a State document, in the requisite form, your opinion is meaningless.
"Proving" an Act involves a show of proof that what is presented is, in fact, an authentic copy of a legistative or judicial act of a State. Federal law prescribes the method of proving an Act.
A legislative Act is proved by having the seal of the respective state affixed thereto.
A judicial Act is proved "by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form."
The Act of May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122) states
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto:
That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form."
Currently it is codified at 28 USC 1738 which states,
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
See the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
2. The faith and credit required to be given to judgments does not depend on the Constitution alone. Article 4, 1, not only commands that 'full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State' but it adds 'Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.' And Congress has exercised this power, by Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, 28 U.S.C. 687, 28 USCA 687, which provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another, and specifically directs that judgments 'shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.'
BUT, she was not old enough to be able to convey citizenship to Obama.
Born in Hawaii, there was no age requirement for his mother. A child born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is born a United States citizen regardless of the status of his parents. 14A states not a mumbling word about parents.
“But the short version is that his mother wasn’t old enough to confer citizenship on any foreign-born child of hers. At the time, the law stated that a mother only conferred citizenship on a foreign-born child of a non-citizen father if she had lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years after the age of 14.”
This nonsense in quotation marks is a quote attributed to nobody and nothing. Understandable that you do not want to admit you did your research on Quora, or that you are the nitwit who posted that crap on Quora.
As Obama was certified by the state of Hawaii to have been born in Hawaii, the claim is irrelevant. Obama was not foreign born.
The curiosity is that you have no problem with the foreign birth of John McCain who offered the family fable that he was born in the U.S. Naval Hospital on the U.S. Naval Air Station, Coco Solo. And it was purported that he was delivered by none other than "Captain" William L. Irvine. And you seem to have no problem with the fact that McCain never publicly produced any birth certificate, much less one for the U.S. Naval Hospital, Coco Solo.
Since June 15, 1804 that is.“AMENDMENT XII - Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.”
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
That is 220 years and includes the Vice Presidency of Chester Arthur and Kamala Harris. Indeed, that has been the law since before any natural born citizen was age-eligible to be the President.
Once again, they’re citizens but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. You’re trying to conflate Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. They’re not the same.
A natural born citizen is one who acquires citizenship at birth. Citizen includes naturalized citizens and natural born citzens. There are two classes of citizen, and two only. Your straining to invent a third class is unavailing.
In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, D. California, 21 Federal Reporter 905 (29 Sep 1884), Field J.
21 Fed. Rep. 906:
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.
21 Fed. Rep. 909
With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.
In Look Tin Sing, the U.S. Federal Court examined the case of a child of two Chinese citizens, born in the United States. Regarding the child, the Federal Court found that the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.
The child with two foreign parents, neither of whom was even eligible for naturalization, when born in the U.S., is born under the jurisdiction of the U.S., exclusive of that of any other country.
The birther argument about jurisdiction has been losing in Federal court since 1886, ten years before Wong Kim Ark.
Was there a “point” to all that?
Yes, it was to make clear the contradistinction betrween birther delusions and actual laws.
A natural born citizen “IS” “a citizen by BIRTH”, BUT under the Constitution the eligibility to be president requires other things. ALL citizens by birth do NOT meet those requirements.
You are absolutely correct. Some natural born citzens do not meet the requirement to be 35 years old, or to have been 14 years a resident of the United States.
If you know of any additional requirements enumerated by the Constitution, please quote that part of the Constitutional which enumerates the additional requirements to which you refer.
The term “natural born citizen” by todays standards was a poor choice of words, but back then everyone knew what it meant.
Yes, as the Court stated, the term is directly taken from the English term natural born subject. The term subject was changed to citizen to reflect the change of the unitary sovereign to the sovereign being the people of the states in a collective sense.
ALL the framers and founders at the time were aware of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”.
Proof of claim abjectly absent. Proof that ALL framers and founders were fluent in French abjectly missing.
There is ample proof that each and every one of the original thirteen states adopted English Common Law as their domestic law. There is ample proof that the Constitution was written in the language of the English Common Law, and there is a citable claim that Blackstone's Commentaries of the English Common Law sold more copies in the colonies/state than in England. The Supreme Court has stated that the Constitution cannot be read without resort to the English Common Law.
The Swiss Emer de Vattel was dead and buried before the Declaration of Independence, much less the Constitution. During the lifetime of Vattel, no such republican government existed, nor did citizen sovereigns exist. Vattel did not write a single word about them.
Vattel wrote a book on the Law of Nations. The Law of Nations was the archaic term for International Law. International Law is a body of law that grew up by custom and usage between nations. It's only application is between two or more nations. It has no application to the domestic law of any nation.
U.S. citizenship determnations are not made in the Hague.
As Congressman Ray Thornton proved, Congress may not add any conditions for holding Fredeal elected office beyond what the Constitution enumerates. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep514779/
U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 93-1456. Argued November 29, 1994-Decided May 22, 1995*
Respondent Hill filed this suit in Arkansas state court challenging the constitutionality of §3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The trial court held that §3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority "to change, add to, or diminish" the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, §3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.
Held: "Section 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution violates the Federal Constitution. Pp. 787-838.
(a) The power granted to each House of Congress to judge the "Qualifications of its own Members," Art. I, § 5, cl. 1, does not include the power to alter or add to the qualifications set forth in the Constitution's text. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 540. After examining Powell's analysis of the Qualifications Clauses' history and text, id., at 518-548, and its articulation of the "basic principles of our democratic system," id., at 548, this Court reaffirms that the constitutional qualifications for congressional service are "fixed," at least in the sense that they may not be supplemented by Congress. Pp. 787-798.
(b) So too, the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners' argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States' pre-Tenth Amendment "original powers," but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is
*Together with No. 93-1828, Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas v. Hill et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications. That this is so is demonstrated by the unanimity among the courts and learned commentators who have considered the issue; by the Constitution's structure and the text of pertinent constitutional provisions, including Art. I, § 2, cl. 1, Art. I, § 4, cl. 1, Art. I, § 6, and Art. I, § 5, cl. 1; by the relevant historical materials, including the records of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates, as well as Congress' subsequent experience with state attempts to impose qualifications; and, most importantly, by the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them,"' Powell, 395 U. S., at 547. Permitting individual States to formulate diverse qualifications for their congressional representatives would result in a patchwork that would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. The fact that, immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, many States imposed term limits and other qualifications on state officers, while only one State imposed such a qualification on Members of Congress, provides further persuasive evidence of a general understanding that the qualifications in the Constitution were unalterable by the States. Pp. 798-827.
(c) A state congressional term limits measure is unconstitutional when it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly. The Court rejects petitioners' argument that Amendment 73 is valid because it merely precludes certain congressional candidates from being certified and having their names appear on the ballot, and allows them to run as write-in candidates and serve if elected. Even if petitioners' narrow understanding of qualifications is correct, Amendment 73 must fall because it is an indirect attempt to evade the Qualifications Clauses' requirements and trivializes the basic democratic principles underlying those Clauses. Nor can the Court agree with petitioners' related argument that Amendment 73 is a permissible exercise of state power under the Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections." A necessary consequence of that argument is that Congress itself would have the power under the Elections Clause to "make or alter" a measure such as Amendment 73, a result that is unfathomable under Powell. Moreover, petitioners' broad construction is fundamentally inconsistent with the Framers' view of the Elections Clause, which was intended to grant States authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures, see, e. g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730, 733, not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude classes of candidates from federal office. Pp. 828-836.
(d) State imposition of term limits for congressional service would effect such a fundamental change in the constitutional framework that it must come through a constitutional amendment properly passed under the procedures set forth in Article V. Absent such an amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a "more perfect Union." Pp. 837-838.
316 Ark. 251, 872 S. W. 2d 349, affirmed.
NATURAL BORN SUBJECT, 7 Anne c5, 5 Eliz, Dyer 224
7 ANNE, c. 5, 1708
An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants.[Whole Act except part printed rep. 10 c. 9 (c. 5 Ruff.)]
3. . . . the children of all natural born subjects born out of the ligeance of her Majesty her heires and successors shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born subjects of this kingdom to all intents constructions and purposes whatsoever.
(a) Guines and Gascony,
(b) add assented
(c) and kept
Case XCI. 5 Eliz. Dyer, 224. Alien, Denizen. 7 Co. 22 b. 20. Vaugh. 282. 2 Vent. 6.
A bastard born at Tour-nay in France, when H. 8 had subdued it, between English parents, is a natural subject of England; and continues so although Tournay be won back by the French: for he was born in obedientia & ligeantia regis Angliæ. By the two chief justices and other judges.The law is the same although the mother be French; or the father and mother French; for the reason is alike: such also is the law, if an husband and wife who are aliens have issue born in England, where the parents were born in France. If a Frenchman marries an English woman, and has issue born in France; this issue is not a natural subject of France; as appears by a book called Treasure de Francois in the title De droit de Aubien, i.e. de alienigenis. It * seems reasonable that our law for the future should not shew more favour to the issue of aliens born in England, than the issue of English parents receive abroad in France. See my Repertory, title Alien and Denizen.
* See above 1, 2. 10 W. 3, cap. 1. 11 & 12 W. 3, cap. 6. 7 Annæ, cap. 5. 1 G. 1, cap. 4. 5 G. 1, cap. 2. 4 G. 27, cap. 21.
See also:
Stanley v Bernes, 3 Hagg. 373 (1830) at 436: “The general and primary rule is, that the national character of the person is acquired from the place of birth, though some exceptions even to that rule have been framed, not by the common law, but by special acts of parliament; as for instance, in favour of persons born abroad, but of natural born British parents.”
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Congressional Research Service Report
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
November 14, 2011
[excerpt]
Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
169 U. S. 702.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
Federalist #68 (Alexander Hamilton):
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
Electors would have "investigated" and declined to vote for a candidate who had non-citizen parents.
...The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
This is what is happening now in Maine with the Secretary of State unilaterally removing President Trump from the ballot. The Electoral College was intended to prevent this kind of ballot corruption.
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place....They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
There is no room in this process for a court to impose rules and restrictions on the Electors. States that try to influence the outcome of the Electoral College by restricting the people the Electors can choose from is in opposition to what Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68, and is an unconstitutional insertion of a federal office that was explicitly excluded from participating in the Electoral College deliberations.
Article II Section 1
The Framers intended for the people to vote for smart, influential non-government people to gather to debate, analyze, investigate, and vote for the President, and that this temporary body cannot be made up of people who hold existing offices in the federal or state governments.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
If members of the judiciary and state executive offices are excluded from being in the Electoral College, then their power to control the choosing of Electors or whom the Electors can select must be excluded, too, or they might as well just be the Electoral College itself.
Any court that tries to interfere with this body by putting restrictions on its deliberations (like who they can vote for), is plainly unconstitutional and must be struck down unanimously.
-PJ
Hoft "writes":
"American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who served as managing editor of Reuters from 2011 to 2016, Paul Ingrassia, has reignited the fiery debate..."
No, Mr. Ingrassia has not reignited a debate about anything.
He died - in 2019.
And yet, Hoft's article cannot even get basic fact checking correct. And more seriously, Hoft attempts to mislead the reader by referring to Ingrassia's actions as in the present tense. Just pathetic and a good example of what a hack Hoft is.
Re: 88 - in clicking on the source article at American Greatness:
there are multiple articles by Ingrassia and then this:
“Paul Ingrassia is a Law Clerk, a two-time Claremont Fellow, and served on President Trump’s National Economic Council. He writes a widely read Substack that is regularly re-truthed by President Trump. His Twitter handle is: @PaulIngrassia.”
So Hoft was so lazy and slipshod that he got what may be? father and son mixed up.
Acting as if past laws, past opinions of law, or what is not law is the current law, is not going to get anywhere in court. Imagine if at the baseball world series, one team claimed to win by default because the other team wasn't playing basketball. It's not how things work.
Saved for very lengthy discussion on NBC.
I believe the original intent of the Electoral College would have mooted this issue. Electors in the early 19th century would not have voted for a person with non-citizen parents.
In the early 19th century there was no popular vote. Delegates to the electoral college were chosen by the state legislatures.
The first time the popular vote was recorded was in 1824.
George Washington's father never became a citizen of the United States.
The Framers intended for the people to vote for smart, influential non-government people to gather to debate, analyze, investigate, and vote for the President....
What the Framers actually did was to have elected state legislators vote for the delegates to the Electoral College, with the individual states having the option to implement a popular vote which they could later revoke.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep531/usrep531098/usrep531098.pdf
See Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated'") (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
That may have been what many states did for awhile (since the Constitution says the legislatures may choose the method of selecting Electors), but Hamilton wrote the following in Federalist #68:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
Granted, Hamilton wrote this during the construction of the Constitution and not the execution of it by the legislatures after ratification, but it shows the intent of the Framers as they were debating it. The Electoral College was envisioned to be made up of trusted prominent town citizens who were not already holding public office, who would gather, discuss, debate, and then each make their choice for President, seal it, and send it off to Congress.
The first time the popular vote was recorded was in 1824.
That was also when the first party nominating convention occurred. The process was maturing.
George Washington's father never became a citizen of the United States.
Irrelevant. That's why Article II Section 1 grandfathered every citizen at ratification as eligible to be President. The Electors would have known this.
Re: Bush v Gore...
I have no disputes with what you posted. I've offered up similar posts in the past, going so far as to suggest alternatives to the current system.
In fact, I'd like to see Electors run individually within each Congressional district, and let the Legislatures appoint the remaining two Electors. No more predetermined slates of Electors of party insiders that cause the current winner-take-all system.
This means not even allocating Electors via the popular vote of each district like in Maine and Nebraska. Take the Presidential candidates' names off the ballot and let the Electors run under their own names with any statement of pledge they wish to offer.
Remember, too, that in the 1860 election Lincoln (and others) had to distribute their own "ballots" because there were no statewide standard ballots that were sent to all the voters. Each candidate printed their own lists of Electors (because the ordinary citizen didn't necessarily know the names of the Electors), and the people voted those "ballots" at the polls.
-PJ
[PJ #87] Electors in the early 19th century would not have voted for a person with non-citizen parents.[wp #92] George Washington's father never became a citizen of the United States.
[PJ #93] Irrelevant. That's why Article II Section 1 grandfathered every citizen at ratification as eligible to be President. The Electors would have known this.
So, the electors did vote for a persons with a non-citizen parent, but that is irrelevant to your claim that "Electors in the early 19th century would not have voted for a person with non-citizen parents." Got it.
Any candidate who had a parent die prior to 1776 had a non-citizen parent. Jefferson had a non-citizen parent, and he got votes in 1800 and 1804.
The grandfather clause said nothing of the citizenship of parents. It said the candidates did not need to be natural born citizens to be eligible to the office. Nobody cared about the citizenship of parents then, or in 1880 when they voted for Chester Arthur.
That may have been what many states did for awhile (since the Constitution says the legislatures may choose the method of selecting Electors), but Hamilton wrote the following in Federalist #68:
What Hamilton anonymously wrote to the People of New York before the Constitutional Convention was just his opinion. Hamilton was the only New York delegate who did not walk out of the Convention, leaving Hamilton with no authority to represent and speak for the state of New York. That is why he signed Hamilton of New York.
Bush v. Gore, "the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution." All the states did that for 35 years with the first recorded popular vote recorded in 1824. Or, as you try to minimize it, they did it "for awhile."
The Electoral College was envisioned to be made up of trusted prominent town citizens who were not already holding public office, who would gather, discuss, debate, and then each make their choice for President, seal it, and send it off to Congress.
What was actually ratified gave plenary authority to the State legislatures; elected State officials. "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." Elected Federal officials could not be electors. It was not until after the 12th Amendment that the Electors cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice-President. As intended by the Framers, they cast two votes each, without specifying votes for President and Vice President.
Article 2, Sec. 3: (see Amendment 12)
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The 12th Amendment cleaned up the mess made by the Framers.
Amendment XIIThe electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President....
Anyway, I was addressing what the Framers actually did, not what you would have preferred them to have done, or what you would prefer to change.
You're just trying to find an edge case and ram a truck through it. You know the point I was making about the Electors evaluating the candidates for eligibility. The non-citizen parents wasn't an issue in 1792 and you know it.
Anyway, I was addressing what the Framers actually did
No, the Framers did what Hamilton wrote. It was the legislatures who did something else with their plenary power. And then Congress changed what the Framers wrote with the 12th amendment.
-PJ
Now your just talking smack to get your jollies.
You keep making claims with false assertions. I respond with the laws, court opinions, and historical documents demonstrating you are in error. Then you only dig a deeper hole trying to make believe you did not say what I can quote you actually saying.
You're just trying to find an edge case and ram a truck through it.
I am not trying to find a case or law that directly contradicts what you write. I actually provide the text of cases, laws and historical documents. I already know them quite well.
You know the point I was making about the Electors evaluating the candidates for eligibility. The non-citizen parents wasn't an issue in 1792 and you know it.
You cannot run and hide from what you actually said.
[PJ #87] Electors in the early 19th century would not have voted for a person with non-citizen parents.[wp #92] George Washington's father never became a citizen of the United States.
[PJ #93] Irrelevant. That's why Article II Section 1 grandfathered every citizen at ratification as eligible to be President. The Electors would have known this.
You said "electors in the early 19th century would not have voted for a person with non-citizen parents." I provided undeniable proof that electors before, during, and after the early 19th century undeniably voted for persons with non-citizen parents. Electors did not care about parents when Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, or Arthur were elected. The Electors did not seem to care when Obama and Harris were elected.
Before and after the grandfather clause, the parents of a candidate did not and do not need citizenship to make the candidate eligible. The candidate could have been an abandoned baby of unknown parentage. You wish to add a qualification that is not enumerated in the Constitution. That cannot be done.
Anyway, I was addressing what the Framers actually did
No, the Framers did what Hamilton wrote. It was the legislatures who did something else with their plenary power. And then Congress changed what the Framers wrote with the 12th amendment.
Hamilton presented The Hamilton Plan at the Convention. The Framers REJECTED Hamilton's plan. Hamilton proposed a President hold office during good behavior, removable only by impeachment and conviction. Essentially, a President for Life, or a modified monarchy. Elections would be held following a notice of vacancy.
The President of the Senate would be the Vice President of the United States. The President of the Senate would be chosen in the Senate.
And, of course, the Hamilton Plan provided that, "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Unlike John Jay, Hamilton wrote of the office of the President as opposed to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Hamilton did not use the term natural born citizen but simply stated, "hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
Anything anonymously published in the Federalist Papers does not show that the Framers followed what Hamilton wrote. Post-Convention, but Pre-Ratification, the Federalist Papers indicate Hamilton adopted what the Framers wrote, and engaged in an anonymous sales pitch for ratification of what they wrote.
The fact remains that Hamilton's Plan was soundly rejected.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
Farrand's Records, Volume 3, Page 617
APPENDIX F THE HAMILTON PLAN [1]Page 617
[Note 1: 1 In preparing this criticism, the editor has used freely, with Mr. Jameson's permission, "The text of Hamilton's Plan," in J. F. Jameson, Studies in the History of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 143--150.]
In connection with his important speech of June 18, Hamilton read a sketch of a plan of government which "was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R. in the proper stages of its future discussion." [2]
[Note 2: 2 See Records of June 18, and Appendix A, CCXXXIII, CCLXXI, CCXCII, CCXCIV--CCXCVI, CCCIX, CCCXI, CCCXII, CCCXXIV, CCCXXVIII, CCCXXIX, CCCLIV, CCCLXVII, CCCLXXX, CCCXCVII, CCCCI.]
Farrand's Records, Volume 3, Page 622
Article IV§ 1. The President of the United States of America, (except in the first instance) shall be elected in manner following - The Judges of the Supreme Court shall within sixty days after a vacancy shall happen, cause public notice to be given in each State, of such vacancy, appointing therein three several days for the several purposes following, to wit, a day for commencing the election of electors for the purposes hereinafter specified, to be called the first electors, which day shall not be less than forty, nor more than sixty days, after the day of the publication of the notice in each State - - another day for the meeting of the electors not less than forty nor more than ninety days from the day for commencing their election - - another day for the meeting of electors to be chosen by the first electors, for the purpose hereinafter specified, and to he called the second Electors, which day shall be not lesss than forty nor more than sixty days after the meeting of the first electors.
Farrand's Records, Volume 3, Page 624
§ 9. The Senate and the Assembly shall always convene in Session on the day appointed for the meeting of the second electors and shall continue sitting till the President take the oath or affirmation of office. He shall hold his place during good behavior, removeable only by conviction upon an impeachment for some crime or misdemeanor.
Farrand's Records, Volume 3, Page 625
§ 14. The President of the Senate shall be vice President of the United States. On the death, resignation, impeachment, removal from office, or absence from the United States, of the President thereof, the Vice President shall exercise all the powers by this Constitution vested in the President, until another shall be appointed, or untill he shall return within the United States, if his absence was with the Consent of the Senate and Assembly.
Farrand's Records, Volume 3, Page 629
Alexander Hamilton proposed that,
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Vanilla and Chocolate are native to Mexico, as well as avocados.
Disregarding this question, her answer to the MSM plant who drilled her on the ‘slavery’ thing was even worse than Kamala Harris’ typical responses - hyena cackles.
Thanks for this post.
Natural Born Citizen as it refers to the requirements for POTUS (and those upon whom the office of POTUS devolves) is essential and Constitutional.
Would also ping to Leo Donofrio who pursued this issue but his tag doesn't work.
https://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/09/supreme-court-turns-down-donofrio-appeal/
There’s a song in there somewhere...🤔
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.