further from tea Party C.C.: ‘Carly: a flawed candidate’ - posted by Natl Dir. Dee - August 10
..
Permalink Reply by Joy Daniels Brower 18 minutes ago (August 11)
Some time ago, I read extensively on arguments for and against children born of a US citizen (or citizens/plural), based on more than one SCOTUS decision. The argument was made - and, I believe, convincingly - that the "natural born" phrase was never really specifically described, thus still open to interpretation.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (August 11)
Joy, a little history search uncovers the answer.
1) When the Constitutional Convention started to look at the issue of eligibility requirements for the office of the president of the new U.S. of A., John Jay - a respected statesman of the time; and who, not so incidentally, became the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court - wrote a letter to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Convention proceedings, thusly: "Dear Sir, Permit me to hint whether it would not 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." That is, no one with DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES in that position. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.
2) They were going by the legal tome of the time on such matters, of E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,' which describes a natural born citizen as one born a) on the soil, b) of citizen parents - PLURAL. So that there is NO FOREIGN LOYALTY OR ALLEGIANCE involved. A matter ESPECIALLY important when talking about the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces. The office of the president was the ONLY federal office with that particular eligibility requirement attached to it - for this very reason. And to drive this whole point home:
3) Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to those proceedings, proposed that the president need only be a, quote, "citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent 'natural born' citizen requirement, i.e., with no dual or conflicting loyalty or allegiance involved.
If any of the delegates was not clear as to what they were being asked to vote on in this matter, all they would have had to do was ask their learned and respected elder mentor, Benjamin Franklin, who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate to the proceedings himself, and who is known to have had three copies of de Vattel's definitive tome on such subjects.
Thus: THEY KNEW PRECISELY what they were voting on. And that point has not been amended since. It doesn't MATTER what any court subsequently said as to that term's meaning: Until the Constitution is CLEARLY AMENDED to change that meaning, that is the relevant meaning of the term.
Indeed, both major political parties in our day tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very point - and failed even to get it out of committee each time, such was the sensitivity around the issue. So: THEY KNOW, too. And between them, are trying to hide the truth of the matter, for their own reasons.
It is scurrilous stuff. And IT MUST NOT STAND. Or we are no longer under the rule of law in this country. Are under the rule of men. Also known as arbitrary law. Also known as TYRANNY.
And I for one WILL NOT HAVE IT.
Reply
Reply
- Reply by Joy Daniels Brower (August 12)
Thanks for that historical bit of history, Stan - in fact, I read that same argument, based on de Vattal's exposition of the subject, several years ago. What comes into play - and into question - is what, SPECIFICALLY, is meant by the words, "Natural Born." In subsequent discussions and rulings (among which is the Senate bill that confirmed that John McCain was, indeed, a "naturally born" US citizen), different scenarios have been raised when children were not actually born on US soil (and the hospital in Panama in which McCain was born, was OFF-[USA] base). So, do BOTH parents have to be US citizens? Or is just one good enough? What does the Constitution say about this? And that's the point: The US Constitution is mute on any defining or distinguishing characteristics of "natural born." It was only the Founding Fathers who (merely) discussed the issue; but no other description was WRITTEN into that Article in the USC. Thus, technically and in actuality, it's up to SCOTUS to interpret that meaning. But have they ever done so? Perhaps you could enlighten all of us in that matter.
BTW, I find it hard to imagine that someone as genuinely intelligent and patriotic as Sen. Cruz is, could knowingly discard a specifically identified USC Article/description. This subject will, of course, come up many times between now and the GOP Convention - and beyond, if Cruz is the nominee.
- Permalink Reply by
- Delete
- Joy,
1) That Senate 'bill' on McCain had no legal clout; it was just a statement of sentiment.
2) Yes, both parents have to be U.S. citizens for one to be a nbc. Otherwise, the person has DUAL loyalties or allegiances - to keep from the having of which was the whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the constitutional Framers (as I say: for that particular office ONLY, for the reason given).
3) I agree, 'tis a puzzlement about Cruz - until one realizes that he had very liberal law-school professors at Harvard. (The libs are big on the Constitution being 'a living document' - i.e., whatever they want to make of it.) Dershowitz was one of them, I believe.
4) The best single source of info on this whole subject that I have come across is: puzo1dotblogspotdotcom. He has dealt with the issue in great detail, including regarding subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
Thanks for asking.
- I just read the blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ and, although a bit long, does describe exactly what "natural born" means. Those running for President and VP must have been born to parents who were both US citizens at the time of birth so they would not have allegiance to any other country. So that leaves Obama, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal as not Natural Born Citizens and there fore should not even be running for nor be president. The Constitution has not been changed on this subject and until it is, that is how the rules stand. As much as I like Cruz and the others, they must remain as Senators to help our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment