Thursday, January 6, 2011
Boehner Satisfied on Obama's Natural Born Status
It's not enough to read the Constitution on the House floor, members have to have an understanding of what our founding fathers meant in Article II Section I . Just because you're born in the United States doesn't make you a "natural born citizen". Your parents have to be citizens, and Obama's father was a foreign national. That automatically precludes him from obtaining the executive office.
I suggest that members of the House recite Vattel's Law of Nations next . After all, our founders believed in natural law.
Vattel's Law of Nations
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
At least someone who attended the event in D.C. understands the gravity of our constitutional crisis:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel, the Swiss philosopher who also recommended that every country should establish its own state religion. Vattel and his book The Law of Nations are not mentioned in the Constitution, and neither is mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers--where as the common law was mentioned about twenty times.
Instead, they followed the meaning of Natural Born in the common law and the laws of the colonies and early states, in which it referred to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth--only the place; it did not refer to parents at all.
"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."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Ron Chernow published in his book Alexander Hamilton the following:
He was especially taken with the jurist Emmerich de Vattel, whom he lauded as "the most accurate and approved of the writers on the law of nations." -- page52
To say our founding fathers never quoted or referenced Vattel is laughable. Here is a list of notable Americans who referenced Vattel:
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me. In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, "of great use to Judges," that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and "his excellent Treatise entitled Le Droit des Gens." James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here." Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations
Here is more on Vattel’s influence and our founding:
Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted The Law of Nations, as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774.
To read more:
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/law-of-nations-or-principles-of-law-of.html
The estate of George Washington just returned Vattel’s Law of Nations to the NYC Public Library this past summer.
For anyone to say that the United States subscribes to the English common law of jus soli ignored the Supreme Court case of Elk v Wilkins. An Indian born on American soil was denied the rights of citizenship:
Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress.[2] Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
We are a Constitutional Republic and therefore we are different than our English brethren.
It wasn’t until the Wong Kim Ark case that the Supreme Court established jus soli; ignoring precedent and the congressional record on the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court usurped congresses’ constitutionally mandated prerogative to: to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Sure they quoted Vattel, as an expert on INTERNATIONAL LAW. Elections and the selection of a president, you know, are domestic matters.
Vattel recommended a lot of things that we did not adopt. For example, he recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join or force them to leave the country.
So, there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel. Yes, they quoted him on international law. But they quoted Blackstone too, and quoted him a lot more than they did Vattel, and Blackstone wrote:
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)
As I said, Vattel is not quoted in the Federalist papers and the common law is quoted about twenty times. The meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and not from Vattel. So Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general, is right in his book, when it says:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
You quote Blackstone:
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.”
The operative word is SUBJECTS. We Americans are not subjects; we are citizens. And that is where we and the English depart. More importantly we must look at the wording of Article II Section I to get a better understanding of what the founders meant by natural born CITIZEN:
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…
Now why did they state “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office”? It is because none of the founding fathers were natural born citizens. The country did not yet exist, so therefore they had to be grandfathered in. I guess jus soli wasn’t good enough.
I don’t know why you keep referring to Vattel’s opinions on state sponsored religions, other than an attempt to discredit him. I will have you know that U.S. states still practiced this after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution; Connecticut until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833, to name a couple. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education in 1944 that formerly extended the Establishment Clause to the States, (another example of a blatant abuse of the 14th Amendment).
You keep quoting Meese, as if that means something to me. I could quote my grandmother, but would that have any significant bearing?
The operative phrase is Natural Born. Americans did not suddenly require two citizen parents to be natural born when they became citizens. If they did, the writers of the Constitution would have told us.
The key phrase is Natural Born. It was never used by AMERICANS at the time of the writing of the Constitution to refer to parents. It only referred to the place of birth, citizenship due to the place of birth.
It is a myth that George Washington and others at the time did not regard themselves as Natural Born. The grandfather clause was inserted to allow someone who was NOT natural born, Alexander Hamilton, who was not born in one of the 13 Colonies (he was born on the island of Nevis) to be eligible to be president--and there were others like him, such as James Wilson, born in Scotland.
Here is a use of Natural Born Citizen in 1803: "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. " (St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803]http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php
As you can see there were only two categories of persons, Natural Born and aliens (because there were no naturalization laws at the time). Natural Born did not refer to birth from American parents, since many of them were from foreign countries and had not been naturalized (obviously, since there were no naturalization laws). Hence Natural Born means what Meese said, citizenship due to the place of birth.
"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."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829).
The facts are that the US Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY. If even one in the 535 members thought that the citizenship of Obama's father (which was well known) had any effect on Obama's eligibility, then there would have been at least one vote against.
They all believe Meese, and not you. And the Supreme Court has turned down every birther case.
Meese, and Black's Law Dictionary are right, and you are wrong.
The Wall Street Journal put it this way: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
To Smstrauss:
I am not buying your premise on the grandfather clause. Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson were British subjects just like George Washington and all the other founding fathers.
However your quote by William Rawle is something different:
"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."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829).
I believe you have taken that quote out of context. Here is the full quote in which it pertains to those citizens born in states prior to the Constitution and how citizenship rights are extended to the federal government:
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen 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.
To Anonymous:
The Birthers believe Obama was born in Kenya. I don’t care where he was born. The location of his birth is irrelevant. His father was a foreign national and that should have automatically precluded him from obtaining the presidency.
As far as Congress is concerned, they have openly shown contempt for our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi and her fellow progressives publicly stated they didn’t care what our Constitution says. Hell, they just read it on the House floor and they omitted complete passages from it.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have the political will to challenge Obama’s natural born status. Besides look at the outrageous rulings they have made in the past. They too have openly laughed at us. I could list a number of Supreme Court cases where these “venerable” judges have spit in our eye and wiped their asses on the Constitution.
What in the hell do you think this tea party movement is all about?
Re: "The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen 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."
I accept that, and I continue to stress that it meant that Rawle believed that there were citizens of the United States prior to the adoption of the US Constitution (remember the Articles of Confederation?) and that EVERY person born in the USA is a natural born citizen.
IN this particular quotation, what can Natural Born mean other than birth due to PLACE of birth? And this fits with the use by St. George Ticker in 1803, in which he said:
"very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject.52 “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 the 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." St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings > View of the Constitution of the United States (1803).
Again, in the above quotation, the term Natural Born Citizen can refer only to persons who were born in America (including the 13 colonies before the Revolution), and it cannot refer to the parents of a citizen because obviously many of the parents were NOT citizens of the colonies or states; the were merely residents there.
It is certain that Alexander Hamilton was not born in one of the 13 colonies. He was a British subject, to be sure, but the meaning of the St. George Tucker quotation refers to America, not to a British colony other than America or to Britain itself.
A search of the writings of Adams, Hamilton and Wilson shows that not one of them ever used the term Natural Born to refer to parents. (Neither did John Jay, but then he seems to have only used it one time, in his letter to Washington. He was a lawyer, however, and almost certainly was referring to the common law, not to Vattel.)
To Smstrauss:
William Rawles further stated that a child follows the conditions of his descendents (father). Clearly he subscribed to Natural Law; and without a doubt was influenced by Vattel:
The next inquiry is, whether this contract was confined to the individual or extended also to his issue. So far as relates to the parent, an answer to this question may be found in the mere statement of it. No one can suppose that the parent intended, that while he was a permanent citizen of the state, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government. Nature itself impresses on the parental mind, a desire to promote the interests of children, and causes it to revolt at the idea of withholding from them what may not only be shared with them, but what also becomes more valuable by being so shared. The pleasing sensation in the parent, of passing from the condition of an oppressed subject, to that of a citizen of a free republic, would surely be impaired by a consideration that his offspring would acquire no birthright in the community of his choice. In respect to him, therefore, we cannot doubt the desire, and have only to examine the power, of fixing the political relations of his descendants.
It seems to me that Rawles didn’t believe in birth right citizenship.
I also believe that the St. George Tucker quote you refer to is also about the individual states and their collective citizenship to the federal government.
We are supposed to believe, without documentary proof of any kind, that the men who had written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" actually believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not as good as the US-born children of us citizens. Absurd. Meese is right and you are wrong.
The Tucker quotation may be about the citizenship of the states, but the meaning of Natural Born is clear. It refers to the place of birth and only to the place of birth.
Note that in those days states made up the rules as to what made a citizen. A person could be natural born, like an Indian or a slave, and yet not be a citizen. That held until the 14th amendment. But it is clear that when someone was both a citizen and Natural Born, she or he was a Natural Born Citizen.
How can we find out the meaning of Natural Born? From the way that the writers of the Constitution USED THE TERM, of course. And, as I said, you cannot find a writer of the Constitution or any leading American of that day using Natural Born to refer to the parents, only to the place of birth.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
[Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
New York 25 July 1787
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”
“The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter
Re: "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Answer: Yes John Jay did say that. But he did NOT say that a Natural Born Citizen required two citizen parents. There is certainly no evidence that Jay, a lawyer and justice (and the first US Chief Justice) was referring to Vattel, a Swiss philosopher. If he were, he would certainly have said so.
What was he referring to? Obviously, he was a lawyer. He was referring to the legal meaning of Natural Born.
That is described by Blackstone as:
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)
Yes, that referred to Natural Born subjects, but--guess what--in the early constitutions of the US states, they also referred to their legal residents as SUBJECTS. More importantly, there is no place where any AMERICAN at the time ever wrote that a Natural Born Citizen required two citizen parents.
John Jay, who was the main writer of the first Constitution of New York State (1777) wrote into it that the common law would apply in New York unless and until an actual New York statute revised the law. It is clear therefore that Jay was thinking of the common law at the time, and there is no evidence that he was thinking of Vattel. The same also holds for the Federalist Papers, in which the common law is referred to about twenty times and Vattel is not mentioned even once.
Re Alexander Hamilton. A search of his writings shows that he never used the term Natural Born to refer to the parents of the person. He only used it like Blackstone. For example: "The position is founded on that clause of the British act of navigation, which forbids any but a natural-born or naturalized subject to exercise the occupation of a merchant or factor, in any of the British dominions in Asia, Africa, and America."
As you can see, he refers only to natural born and naturalized subjects. If Natural Born referred to the parents then there would have to be three categories: naturalized subjects, subjects born in the country, and subjects born of parents who were subjects.
IF the Vattel definition of Natural Born was actually used, then the writers of the Constitution would suddenly and secretly have switched from the use of Natural Born that they had used all their lives to the Swiss meaning of the term. They would not have done that without telling us.
That is why Meese is right, and you are wrong. And that is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY, because not one single member in the 535 believed that Obama's father has any effect on Natural Born Citizen status.
I guess I have to remind you that we had a Declaration of Independence and a war that severed the bonds of English rule.
George Mason, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and author of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights wrote the following: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
The founding fathers read the same books and all of them were familiar with Vattel. Vattel was referenced in their writings. Please go to the library and check out American Political Writing during the Founding Era 1760 – 1805. You will find whole passages that are without a doubt Vattel.
Had the founding fathers knew that words and language would be distorted, I’m sure they would have provided a glossary; that way you wouldn’t have to be a gymnast to arrive to your “natural born” conclusion.
Re: "The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
Sure. But it is not the common law but the meaning of Natural Born that is the issue, and the meaning of Natural Born is simply the same as it was in the common law. It is not the meaning under Vattel. It did not suddenly change from the old meaning "birth in the country" to "two citizen parents" simply because we became independent.
Mason, by the way, may well be wrong about that. The common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, while Vattel is not mentioned at all. John Jay, who was the main writer of the first Constitution of New York, actually wrote the common law of Britain and of the American colonies into the Constitution of New York, saying that the common law applied unless and until a new law was specifically passed by New York.
In any case, it is the MEANING of the phrase Natural Born that counts. Since the writers of the Constitution did not mention Vattel in the Federalist papers, and John Jay did not mention him in his letter to Washington, and none of them ever said "Natural Born means two citizen parents," the meaning of Natural Born must have been the meaning that they were FAMILIAR with.
They were mainly lawyers, familiar with the common law, and that is where the phrase comes from. And that is why Meese, Ronald Regan's attorney general, is right when his book says:
"“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
I see this conversation is becoming repetitive. However, I still have an argument. Our founding fathers believed in Natural Law. Our founding fathers referred to Natural Law repeatedly; again, I must ask you to refer to American Political Writings during the Founding Era 1760-1805. Natural Law was also mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Here is the complete title of Vattel’s book:
Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature:
Applies to the Conduct & Affairs of Nations & Sovereigns
1759. 1st. English Edition.
Emmerich de Vattel
By the way the law of nations is also mentioned in our Constitution, see Article One.
Since, you insist on quoting Meese. I guess I’m going to have to take your argument to its absurd premise. Suppose you have an illegal alien couple from Mexico come into the U.S... They drop an anchor baby. The child now has dual citizenship. Later on that kids parents go back to Mexico; however he stays. Mexico declares war. Is that child not an enemy alien?
"“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
"They drop an anchor baby. The child now has dual citizenship. Later on that kids parents go back to Mexico; however he stays. Mexico declares war. Is that child not an enemy alien? "
Answer. No, he or she is NOT an enemy alien. He or she is a Natural Born US citizen, eligible for the draft, and if drafted and serving in the US armed forces, expected to be loyal or subject to charges of treason. If she or he were not a US citizen, the charge of treason would not and could not apply.
There has actually been a decision of the JAG office (judge advocate general's office) of the Army that a person can be a dual citizen of two different countries at the same time. A foreign country that considers the children of its citizens to be citizens (in this case Germany) and a country that considers the persons born in that country to be citizens, in this case the USA.
Re Natural Law. There are about 12 major natural law philosophers, and they all disagree. One prominent natural law philosopher, Leibnitz, held that "all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds."
It is for this reason that the interpretation of the Constitution relies on precedents and written documents and in some cases common law, and only very rarely natural law.
However, Natural Law does not help your case. Not a bit. You will recall that the Declaration of Independence had written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
If the writers really believed that, then it is absurd to believe without any evidence that they actually believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not as good as the US-born children of US citizens.
To be sure, there is evidence that they really did not believe that slaves were just as good as free people. But there is no point in implying that the writers of the Constitution believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not as good as the US-born children of US citizens unless there was actual evidence that they believed it. AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
RE: "They drop an anchor baby. The child now has dual citizenship. Later on that kids parents go back to Mexico; however he stays. Mexico declares war. Is that child not an enemy alien? "
Answer. No, he or she is NOT an enemy alien. He or she is a Natural Born US citizen, eligible for the draft, and if drafted and serving in the US armed forces, expected to be loyal or subject to charges of treason. If she or he were not a US citizen, the charge of treason would not and could not apply
My answer: I didn’t ask you that. According to Meese, he or she would be considered an enemy alien. Nice try.
Re: Natural Law. There are about 12 major natural law philosophers, and they all disagree. One prominent natural law philosopher, Leibnitz, held that "all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds."
Answer: It must be nice to casually dismiss natural law “philosophers” without substantiating your argument. What is even more disturbing is your casual dismissal of our founding documents. Natural law and the law of nations are clearly stated.
Re: If the writers really believed that, then it is absurd to believe without any evidence that they actually believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not as good as the US-born children of US citizens.
Answer: What our founding fathers thought perverse and morally reprehensible was to grant citizenship to a child born on a U.S. soil; in essence politically separating that child from his foreign parents. THAT IS UNNATURAL. Your boy William Rawles wrote just that, as did
Vattel.
Re: "According to Meese, he or she would be considered an enemy alien. Nice try."
A child of an enemy alien is a child born to a parent or parents who are in an occupying army.
From the Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."
And it says that everyone else is Natural Born.
Re: "What our founding fathers thought perverse and morally reprehensible was to grant citizenship to a child born on a U.S. soil; in essence politically separating that child from his foreign parents. THAT IS UNNATURAL. "
Answer: You are starting to get desperate, and your emotions are showing. IF the founders thought it was morally reprehensible to grant US citizenship to the children of foreigners, they would have told us about that thought.
Moreover, these upright men would not have done anything morally reprehensible themselves, would they? So, if they thought that the children of foreigners should not become citizens, would they actually allow a child born outside the 13 colonies AND to two foreigners to become president?
Surely they would never have done that. But that is exactly what the grandfather clause allows. It allows for a short time, a time that you consider morally reprehensible, for a child born outside the USA and of two parents who were not citizens of the USA to become president so long as he was naturalized by a US state.
There has been some research that shows that the effect of the grandfather clause would have allowed in addition to such non-US born leaders as Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson to be president, about 60,000 other men who had been born overseas and naturalized to become president.
The men who had written "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" did not believe that the US-born children of foreigners were foreigners or that they were less likely to be good citizens than the US-born children of US citizens, and if they did they would have TOLD US.
If there were a shred of evidence that the writers of the Constitution were following any particular Natural Law in Article II they would have told us. Neither Vattel nor The Law of Nations is referred to in the Constitution or in the Federalist Papers. That is why the OVERWHELMING majority of legal scholars, constitutional scholars, and the US Congress in confirming Obama's election unanimously all hold that birth in the USA fulfills the Natural Born Citizenship criterion.
No other natural law philosopher except for Vattel, who was Swiss and thought like the people in jus sanguinus countries, held that a Natural Born Citizen required two citizen parents. And his words "Natural Born Citizen" were not translated into English until after the Constitution was written.
And the US Supreme Court has turned down every birther lawsuit so far.
Post a Comment