Not true, "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," clearly allows people who were born wherever to be eligible so long as they were citizens when the Constitution was adopted.Originally Posted by Jan2017
What is "not true" in this statement ?
I believe the added clause was actually to prevent a "colonist" born in one of the 13 colonies that considered not ratifying the Constitution
(a few states still threatened to secede from the new pact) - making it "more" exclusive - not less.
A foreign-born (and also as well, anyone born in a colony that did not ratify) would be ineligible.
That was John Jay's and the founders' intent. No foreigners(period)
You're....not serious are you?
None of that "born in the colonies or not born in the colonies" is even remotely relevant, since eligibility was conferred upon all persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. That means your entire argument about "the Scot" is nonsense. That Scot would have totally been eligible even for President under the Constitution as it was ratified, because he was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
You don't get to assign your own private meaning to words and phrases just to make them mean whatever you want to. The provision for eligibility for persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is quite obviously there, and it quite obviously confers eligibility to any person who was a US citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.I believe the added clause was actually to prevent a "colonist" born in one of the 13 colonies that considered not ratifying the Constitution
(a few states still threatened to secede from the new pact) - making it "more" exclusive - not less.
A foreign-born (and also as well, anyone born in a colony that did not ratify) would be ineligible.
That was John Jay's and the founders' intent. No foreigners(period)
What on God's green Earth would lead you to fight that ... blatantly ... obvious ... point?
Frank Marshall Davis was an American Communist under investigation by the FBI for subversive activites from the early 1950s until 1970 when J. Edgar Hoover died and the investigation was shut down.
natural born citizen definition
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...43.1NYX05ejJ-A
Not an iota of a chance . . . he was ineligible for POTUS, but not Senate - very well documentable.
The vote on the clause was to exclude a foreign born commander-in-chief . . . foreign meaning outside the colonies of the confederacy.
If a state did not ratify, would a citizen there be foreign-born ?
No, not really - but they would need to be excluded for president of course.
The now moot second part/clause was not meant to expand the range of president eligibility but to restrict any non-ratifiers
who were formerly part of the constitutional convention and confederacy.
Last edited by Jan2017; 01-07-2016 at 08:00 PM.
Sorry, I actually read English. The US Constitution is written in English. The clause is perfectly clear. There is no ambiguity in it. You don't get to assign meanings which the language does not support.
The vote on the clause was to exclude a foreign born commander-in-chief . . . foreign meaning outside the colonies of the confederacy.
If a state did not ratify, would a citizen there be foreign-born ?
No, not really - but they would need to be excluded for president of course.
The now moot second part/clause was not meant to expand the range of president eligibility but to restrict any non-ratifiers
who were formerly part of the constitutional convention and confederacy.
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.
This is plain unambiguous unequivocal English. The Framers were expert speakers of English.
The second now-moot clause is clear in showing that a natural born citizen could be different than "a citizen of the United States at the date in 1789".
The Scot was not eligible - as they discussed him specifically over the senator resolution as not being eligible as a senator even - if that had stuck.
At the date of the adoption of the United States he had no claim as a US citizen being born in Scotland and not born in the colonies -
yet a non-ratifier might try to be considered eligible without the second clause.
Very crafty clause to be sure for that immediate - yet fleeting after ratification was finished - predicament they were covering their asses for.
bump
Sorry but the truth is that "laws" have NEVER mattered. "Laws" are nothing but words on paper written down to give TPTB an excuse to use violence on the minions to keep them in line. Those at the top know the REAL truth... THERE IS NO LAW!
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
That's not what the English phrase clearly and obviously says.
You are treating it as though it said:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, being different from a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible...
When it does not in fact say that, it ACTUALLY SAYS:
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...
Which is clear incontrovertible English.
Again, you don't get to assign random meanings to the English language whenever the actual text doesn't say what you want it to.The Scot was not eligible - as they discussed him specifically over the senator resolution as not being eligible as a senator even - if that had stuck.
At the date of the adoption of the United States he had no claim as a US citizen being born in Scotland and not born in the colonies -
yet a non-ratifier might try to be considered eligible without the second clause.
Very crafty clause to be sure for that immediate - yet fleeting after ratification was finished - predicament they were covering their asses for.
by Publius Huldah August 22, 2015
At the common law, Husband and wife were "one" and The Man was The One. The legal name of this concept is "coverture".
Married women weren't separate legal entities in their own right. Their legal identity was subsumed under their Husband's. Married women weren't "citizens" in their own right.
Vattel and our Framers had the FATHER in mind in their concept of "natural born citizen": The Man is the one who counts! http://thewashingtonstandard.com/wha...-born-citizen/
Later on, with Married Womens' Property Acts in various States, female suffrage with the 19th Amendment, etc., this legal fiction of the wife's legal identity being subsumed into that of her husbands, was ended. [However, as a holdover, married women still sometimes refer to themselves as Mrs. John Smith instead of Mrs. Mary Smith.]
At the time of our Framing, coverture was in full force and effect. SO it was the FATHER's citizenship which counted. That is the original intent. That intent remains until Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 is amended pursuant to Art. V. I propose an amendment saying that both the Mother and Father must be US Citizens at the time of their child's birth for the child to be a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5. http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/wh...-born-citizen/
So under the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 – which original intent continues until changed by amendment – IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO Barack Hussein Obama's mother was, and it doesn't matter WHO Ted Cruz' mother is: Their fathers were not US citizens at the times they were born so THEY ARE NOT "natural born citizens."
Continue:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/na...and-coverture/
Source:
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...and-coverture/
No random meaning at all anywhere in my true assertion that
the guy born under the King and his family born under the King in Scotland was definitely not eligible to ever be commander-in-chief.
Should he be eligible to be a Senator was the only question that came to discussion.
John Jay in writing the phrase that was voted on considered both himself - as one of the "pre-presidents" particularly
born in New York, and the recipient of the letter - George Washington who was born in Virginia, as natural born citizens.
John Jay's verbatim writing is what the state delegations voted on
" that the commander-in-chief of the nation shall be a natural born citizen"
The subsequent ratification event clause was written in a draft that was never put before a vote,
an afterthought of a potential quagmire that is fixed at the moment of ratification. More of a . . .
If anyone thinks that the ratification encouraging clause triggered OFF after full ratification" I sure hate that delegate from Rhode Island . . ."
"Yeah, what a douchebag . . ."
" Did you see the delegate from the fine colony of Maryland drink him under the table last night ?"
"Ah, that guy drinks everyone under the table . . . Rhode Island still threatens to secede ya'know . . ."
" Well one of them is solid behind this new republic - if it can stay together"
"They are on the bubble, man."
Guverneur Morris : (dipping the quill into the ink well) ". . . or a US citizen at Adoption".
was about enabling foreign-soil born citizens to become President momentarily you are wrong.
The Scotland born delegate wasn't a natural-born citizen, or, a US citizen at Adoption.
It was about where the border would be for the new nation if there was a holdout state which seceded, and Rhode Island was in the top-tier for that.
If you were so infortunate to have been born in a rebel state that would NOT ratify - but the family had already made it to North Carolina -
you'd be cool with the First Supreme Court Chief Justice - no ineligibility for having been a natural born citizen of a seceded Rhode Island
but a US Citizen now in NC, 'fer instance.
exactly, the worry of who might not ratify event was over.No Person except a natural born Citizen, being different from a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
Last edited by Jan2017; 01-08-2016 at 09:41 AM.
This shyt right here is why Constitutionalism failed in the US. People just read whatever TF they want to to support their preformed opinions instead of taking the actual plain language English meaning.
Exactly why the Supreme Court gets involved when a difference of interpretation becomes important in a constitutional case -
not sure if there could be a better way - but a stretch to say it has "failed"
Your notion from reading into the contigiency clause that somehow
a Scotland born commander-in-chief could be possible for some temporary period is historically incorrect.
No foreign born Presidents - simple, as it has always been, and no Chester Arthur if the evidence turned out he was born over the border.
. . . oh, and by the way, no one from a seceding state, should that have occurred - unless they have given up that seceding-state natural-born status
and decided to become a US citizen by moving to a United States ratifier in time.
I do not think there is anything much anywhere - if at all - about the "or" clause.
Just using simple English works fine . . .
the "or" clause at least shows the writer/drafter contemplated that there could be a distinction between a US citizen and a natural born citizen of the new nation.
Last edited by Jan2017; 01-08-2016 at 11:47 AM.
But this isn't a case where your interpretation is even possible. If any person was a citizen of the states at the time the Constitution was ratified, they were eligible, regardless where they were born. Nothing any other document says can change that. Even if someone who wrote the words themselves came out and said, "I know that I wrote X, but I really meant Y," that would change nothing. The text that was ratified by the states was the text that said X.
Perhaps it already has. I think one could successfully argue that basing natural-born citizenship on a coverture theory would violate equal protection. In other words, it would be impermissible discrimination to say that candidate A (whose father was a citizen) is eligible to be elected President, but candidate B (whose mother was a citizen but whose father wasn't) isn't.
Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 01-08-2016 at 01:07 PM.
If the intent of something written only a couple hundred years ago in plain English can be debated, how can anyone claim to know the true meaning of religious writings dating back thousands of years?
Because simply being able to debate something doesn't mean that you can't know its true meaning.
People with totally opposite interpretations both think they know the true meaning.
So, at this point, what difference does it make??
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
Yes, exactly. Nothing has to change. Nothing should change - the original intent as written is never changed except by Amendment.
Yep, a natural born citizen or a US citizen at Adoption/Ratification (whether born in Rhode Island or not)
No change in the intent as voted on in the convention by state delegation, and signed by most nearly all delegates to be presented to the states legislatures for ratification and Adoption.
No foreigner could claim citizenship in the new nation at adoption of the Constitution - no avenue to just mere "citizenship",
which the "or" clause differentiates as a possibility.
Being an inhabitant in the new nation was not citizenship at the moment of full ratification. Lots of spies or defector factions still around.
A foreign-born of foreign parents would never have had an iota of claim as meeting the Presidential Eligibility Clause-
a Scotland born person could not have an avenue to being a US citizen at Adoption.
It defines that there some future class of people that could become US citizens (however they get citizenship occurring afterward)
are distinguishable from the natural-born citizens of the nation, the ones who are eligible for the executive spot..
There are actually cases in federal courts that are exactly that.
It is the only Cruz strategy, to change the original meaning to his current spin . . .
"the intent of the Constitution really means that the Canada-born were eligible to the be USA chief executive" horse$#@!.
"Constitutionalist" TrusTed Cruz just has to go back to the constitution.
Last edited by Jan2017; 01-09-2016 at 09:00 AM.
Still the facts of the intent do not get changed . . .
This is precisely what courts do, and will always do. If this becomes a dispute, then it becomes a question of law not a question of fact.
Birthers about McCain or Obama or Chester Arthur had a question of fact - born in the USA or not ?
And his parents are natural born citizens. I was born overseas of natural born American citizens, thus, I am a natural born citizen.
Obama had one parent who was an Amercian citizen. His father never was American, and neither was his stepfather. Furthermore, he spent most of his formative years living in Thailand, so he really does not have the sensibilities of an American, whatever his citizenship.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
Yes, McCain's arguments were a "question of fact" - was he born in the US?
Even if McCain could produce he wasn't actually born in the Panama hospital where the birth log was signed by the Navy doctor,
Panama CanalZone territory was unincorporated territory.
Further, it was no longer any form of US territory . . . willingfully or not.
If the framers had lost ground in battle or by non-ratification, or loss of territory - they wouldn't be able to consider that as born in the US.
And now unfortunately post-McCain, TrusTed Cruz is now saying nothing matters in that President Eligibility Clause.
Not a natural born citizen of the US though.
Same as if you were born on a Navy ship sailing in international waters -
that is believe it or not, right or wrong - not born in the US.
No one is questioning you'd be a US citizen.
Obama was born in the USA's 50th state - Chester Arthur had enough evidence he was born on the Vermont side of the border.
Cruz needs to move the Northern border some hundreds of miles to be USA born.
With the SNL parody of Sarah Palin that "and I can see Russia from my house" -
a joke that people actually had to argue about the curvature of the earth -
brings to mind "If TrusTed Cruz can even see the USA from his birthplace ?" lol.
Last edited by Jan2017; 01-09-2016 at 10:02 AM.
Why do you keep bringing up whether or not something came up for discussion, instead of addressing what the Constitution actually says?
You don't have to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen of the US.
"native-born" has been the synonym used in a subsequent Supreme Court case even.
It is what birthers were talking about - Arthur, Romney, Goldwater, McCain, Obama, born in the US ?
But no one can change the meaning to anything else from what was voted on in the constitutional convention and signed off for ratification.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us