Article II Eligibility Facts

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html ^

[Lurkinanloomin]

It does not define any terms used.
They used words everyone understood.
Do you not know what “shall not be infringed” means, either?

[DoodleDawg]

It does not define any terms used

It defines treason.

They used words everyone understood.

Apparently not, given all the discussions on it these past ten years or so.

Do you not know what “shall not be infringed” means, either?

Yeah, the definition of that has been all over the board, too.

The Constitution identifies two kinds of citizen; natural-born and naturalized. If you're not one then you're the other.

[rxsid]

1787

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "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." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

June 27 1787. IN CONVENTION (Vattel's legal work is read aloud during the Federal Convention) "...that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho' the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not:In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he [Luther Martin] read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers -- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he [L.M.] read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford:" From Madison's Notes on the Convention.
Similar notes on Vattel being read during the convention can be found in the notes of Rufus King and Robert Yates as well.

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
https://books.google.com/books?id=vTBIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=false

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "natural born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Thank you for your contribution.
Some of the deliberate obtuseness seen in these threads belies an agenda.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Well, that's a rather sideways answer to the question, so I'll ask it again:

Do you think someone with an American citizen father and a foreign-born mother today would be a "natural born citizen" if born in this country?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, that's a rather sideways answer to the question, so I'll ask it again:

Sideways? Requiring the constitutional requirements to be enforced until the constitution is amended is somehow inadequate? What is your position on constitutional requirements? Do we enforce them or not?

Do you think someone with an American citizen father and a foreign-born mother today would be a "natural born citizen" if born in this country?

Yes, because that was the standard used in 1787. The mother's previous citizenship is irrelevant if she marries an American citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

Apparently not, given all the discussions on it these past ten years or so.

People nowadays are ignorant and silly. People of 1787 knew what the words meant. Oddly enough, the meaning of "natural born citizen" was deliberately corrupted by the abolition movement, and most especially William Rawle.

[DiogenesLamp]

And where did it define natural-born citizen?

The word self defines. The word used by the English is "Subject". The word "citizen" in the modern meaning (member of a nation state) has a specific origin in time and place, and it is easily tracked back to that specific location and time.

It comes from Switzerland, and it's usage as describing a member of a nation state traces back to the Charte des prêtres in 1370.(the old Swiss confederacy foundation document.) In the English of the 1760s, it meant "city-Denizen, or "town-man." We deliberately adopted the Swiss meaning of the word because it was a Swiss man that put the idea of a confederation of independent states into our founders heads.

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

(published in 1758)

Perhaps if you learned more about the natural law foundation of the United States system of governance, you would have a better understanding of how Lincoln damaged our system of governance.

[WildHighlander57]

See freepmail.

[arrogantsob]

The “Birthers” got tempted to go down the Where argument (which is unprovable and never made any sense to me.) But an iron-clad FACT is the citizenship of his “father.”

[DoodleDawg]

People nowadays are ignorant and silly.

So I've noticed.

People of 1787 knew what the words meant. Oddly enough, the meaning of "natural born citizen" was deliberately corrupted by the abolition movement, and most especially William Rawle.

William Blackstone said it was location, jus soli, rather than citizenship of the parents, jus sanguinis, that decided natural born citizenship, and he wrote that in 1765.

[DoodleDawg]

Perhaps if you learned more about the natural law foundation of the United States system of governance, you would have a better understanding of how Lincoln damaged our system of governance.

LOL! Like you? No, thank you.

[DiogenesLamp]

William Blackstone said it was location, jus soli, rather than citizenship of the parents, jus sanguinis, that decided natural born citizenship, and he wrote that in 1765.

And what role did William Blackstone play in the formation of the US government?

Citing William Blackstone, the premier expert on Monarchist based English law, is a good example of what I meant when I said "People nowadays are ignorant and silly." William Blackstone's position on Independence from the United Kingdom would have been "it's illegal."

[DiogenesLamp]

See what I mean? No rebuttal, just barf.

[DoodleDawg]

And what role did William Blackstone play in the formation of the US government?

He was studied by every member of the Constitutional convention that was a lawyer.

Citing William Blackstone, the premier expert on Monarchist based English law, is a good example of what I meant when I said "People nowadays are ignorant and silly."

Oh I can think of a lot of other indications.

William Blackstone's position on Independence from the United Kingdom would have been "it's illegal."

So would Vattel's. Vattel would have found the idea of separation of church and state to be completely wrong. Hw would have had issues with a lot of the Constitution.

Back to "laws of nature and nature's God" position I expect.

[DoodleDawg]

See what I mean? No rebuttal, just barf.

As I said, the most appropriate response to your opinions that I could think of.

[DiogenesLamp]

He was studied by every member of the Constitutional convention that was a lawyer.

Not regarding his opinions on forming a government outside of the Monarchy. The source of law for what they were doing at that convention was not English Common law.

So would Vattel's. Vattel would have found the idea of separation of church and state to be completely wrong.

That wasn't in the main body of the Constitution. That was a subsequently proposed set of Amendments. What is in the body of the Constitution is a dispensation to the President from working on Sundays, and an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as "Lord" at the end of the document.

Hw would have had issues with a lot of the Constitution.

So some people have asserted, though these claims all miss the main point. The creation of a confederated republic was his core idea. All the rest is just window dressing, and whether or not details went along with his suggestions, his concept of a confederated Republic did in fact get adopted.

Was Blackstone, or anyone else suggesting such an idea?

Vattel is what inspired James Otis to start his pamphleteering. Vattel is what did in fact trigger the entire thing.

From "The rights of the British Colonies asserted and proved", 1764, by James Otis.

[DiogenesLamp]

As I said, the most appropriate response to your opinions that I could think of.

I suppose if I should want something better, I would have to chose to argue with someone of better ability.

[DoodleDawg]

I suppose if I should want something better, I would have to chose to argue with someone of better ability.

Well there's always Jeffersondem. I think you are both about the same level.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well there's always Jeffersondem. I think you are both about the same level.

You may have missed this, but the core necessity for an argument is disagreement.