Main Menu

Who is Pinckney McElwee and why should I care?

I was following a Google alert and ended up on the “low immigration” activism web site, the Center for Immigration Studies. Their article takes the Washington Post to task for one of its articles about Cruz eligibility, and its suggestion that one option to resolve the controversy over the meaning of “natural born citizen” is to just pass a constitutional amendment removing the words “natural born.”

My article, despite it’s irrelevant opening paragraph, is not about what the CIS or WaPo said, but rather about a comment on that article left by Charles Kerchner:

image

pointing to a 2014 article at the Liberty Born blog: NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act by T. J. McCann. There are two things that I would take issue with in that article, summarized in the words “NEW” and “EVIDENCE.”

Something from 1969 related to the abbreviated candidacy of George Romney for president hardly classifies as “new.” It’s also not new to readers of this blog who followed the discussion over Bob Gard’s 1722-page eBook on presidential eligibility the year before, or my own presentation of the information back in 2010, or when it appeared on NBC’s blog in 2009. The “NEW EVIDENCE” is from an unpublished  paper by an otherwise unknown DC attorney Pinckney McElwee, read into the Congressional record for the purpose of raising doubts over George Romney’s eligibility in 1969. One commenter here in 2010 described it as a “political hit piece” and I have compared its author to Mario Apuzzo because of their similarity of position, not the quality of their work. Here is the paper, from the Web Archive version of NBC’s Native and Natural  Born Citizenship Explored blog.

T. J. McCann at Liberty Born says that the McElwee paper provides insight into the thinking of Congress when they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequently repealed it. The question at issue is whether the 1795 Act says the same thing as the 1790 Act just in different words, or that the concept of “natural born” was intentionally deleted for cause. Those who would argue against Cruz or Romney’s eligibility would find comfort in the latter. Here’s the relevant material:

Although it is not within the power of Congress to change or amend the Constitu­tion by means of definitions of languages used in the Constitution so as to mean some­thing different than intended by the framers (amendments being governed by Article V) an argument might be advanced to the effect that the use of identical language by Con­gress substantially contemporaneously might be considered in later years by a court to reflect the same meaning of the same words by the framers of the Constitution; and under this argument to attach importance to the Act of Congress of March 26, 1790 (1 stat 103).

This argument fades away when it is found that this act used the term “natural-born” through inadvertence which resulted from the use of the English Naturalization Act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773) ) as a pattern when it was deemed necessary (as stated by Van Dyne) to enact a similar law in the United Skates to extend citizenship to for­eign-born children of American parents. In the discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives in respect to the proposed naturalization bill of a committee composed of Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania, Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina and Andrew Moore of Virginia, Mr. Edamus Burke of South Carolina stated, “The case of the chil­dren of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of Wil­liam III.” (See pp 1121, Vol 1 (Feb. 4, 1790) of Annals of Congress.) The proposed bill was then recommitted to the Committee of Hartley, Tucker and Moore, and a new bill containing the provision in respect to foreign-born children of American parentage was included, using the Anglican phrase “shall be considered as natural born citi­zens.” Manifestly, Mr. Burke had given the wrong reference to the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of William III which was an inheritance law. But, it was a naturalization bill and the reference to the English acts shows the origin of the inadvertent error in using the term natural-born citizen instead of plain “citizen” came from copying the English Naturalization Act.

Mr. James Madison, who had been a mem­ber of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturaliza­tion act.

McElwee says “Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted,” but no citation is provided, and hence no evidence is presented, and we find the additional misdirection stating Mr. James Madison was a member of the Committee of the House in 1795, while omitting the fact that the same Madison was a member of the House in 1790 as well. To buy McElwee’s argument, we must assume that the majority of Congress, many lawyers and some Framers of the Constitution would unthinkingly copy and paste something from an English statute, and we must take his word about the proceeding of a committee, without citation, asserting something no one else has found.

McCann writes:

If they were not intending to make them natural born citizens, as McElwee’s evidence from the 1795 House Commitee (sic) notes indicates, THEN the founders were using the reference to NBC in the original 1790 Naturalization Act in some other way than to actually confer NBC status.

There is nothing in the McElwee paper citing anything from the 1795 House Committee notes. He gives no EVIDENCE.

Just for reference, I wanted to point out an obvious error in McElwee’s paper, where he says:

In 1802, when Congress repealed entirely the law of 1790, it enacted that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, although born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” (2 stat 153).

It would be difficult for Congress to have repealed the 1790 Act in 1802, when it had already repealed the act in its entirety in 1795.

Mr. McElwee provides little comfort to the Obama birthers, quoting Blackstone who said:

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligence, or, as it Is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.”

That quotation also appeared at Birther Report yesterday in a comment quoting Mary Brigid McManamon. It was not well received.

, , , , , , , , , ,

117 Responses to Who is Pinckney McElwee and why should I care?

  1. avatar
    Dave B. January 23, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

    I’m not quite following you there, Doc. I agree that the 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act, which was in turn supplemented to and amended by the 1798 act, which was repealed along with the 1795 act by the 1802 act. But that language:

    “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, although born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States”

    is from the 1802 act. It’s the famous screw-up that Horace Binney had so much fun with. The 1795 act goes like this:

    “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States”

    Did you mean something else there?

    “Just for reference, I wanted to point out an obvious error in McElwee’s paper, where he says:

    In 1802, when Congress repealed entirely the law of 1790, it enacted that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, although born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” (2 stat 153).

    It would be difficult for Congress to have repealed the 1790 Act in 1802, when it had already repealed the act in its entirety in 1795. The 1802 act repealed the Naturalization Act of 1798. The citation for 1802 appears to be that for 1795, as the 1802 Act had no such provision.”

  2. avatar
    Dave B. January 23, 2016 at 5:10 pm #

    I’ve spent most of the day trying to track down a reference for McElwee’s assertion about that “false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President” and I haven’t found anything. The restyling of the provision for transmission of citizenship is alluded to here:
    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/heres-why-ted-cruz-isnt-eligible-run-president
    with a little bit of nothing-up-my-sleeve handwaving, but again, no reference is provided.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

    No, just a garden variety screw up.

    Dave B.: Did you mean something else there?

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2016 at 6:21 pm #

    Well sometimes, you know, people make stuff up when they need to.

    Dave B.: no reference is provided.

  5. avatar
    Dave B. January 23, 2016 at 6:25 pm #

    Only notable in its rarity.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No, just a garden variety screw up.

    I was wondering if he’d been relying on McElwee. There seems to be a bit of that going around.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well sometimes, you know, people make stuff up when they need to.

  6. avatar
    Dave B. January 23, 2016 at 11:04 pm #

    Okay, from that Alternet/Salon article by Einer Elhauge:
    “Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.”

    I see what he’s done there. Well, what I think he’s done is further gloss over what Mary McManamon had glossed over in her CULR article from last April:

    “On January 2, 1795, the bill was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was James Madison. Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens: “It was only granted to them to admit aliens.” The following Monday, January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization, containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superseded.””

    Mary Brigid McManamon, The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood 336, 64 Cath. U. L. Rev. 317 (2015)
    http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3314&context=lawreview

    Here’s the record of the relevant portion of the debate from December 29, 1794:

    “The third resolution in the report was then read; which was, that if an American citizen chose to expatriate himself, he should not be allowed to enter into the list of citizens again without a special act of Congress, and of the State from which he had gone.
    Mr. Madison did not think that Congress, by the Constitution, had any authority to readmit American citizens at all. It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”

    Which had nothing at all to do with the restyling of the provision for transmission of citizenship.

  7. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 23, 2016 at 11:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, just a garden variety screw up.

    Well, Doc, I wonder how many layers of careless “screw-up” on the part of the then-legislators (some Framers), we can realistically accept, because one could argue that if they decided to “correct” an inadvertent inclusion of the term “Natural Born”, they surely would have been taking care to have the wording say exactly what they now intended, and so we might assume that the odd 1790 expression “shall be CONSIDERED AS Natural Born Citizens of the United States” would become “shall be citizens of the United States”, instead of “shall be CONSIDERED AS citizens of the United States”.

    A strong case can be made for arguing that the odd phrasing in the 1790 statute was deliberately and thoughtfully intended to convey and/or concede for that moment in time, that while a statute could not ‘create’ a “Natural Born Citizen”, a statute worded as the 1790 one was, could insist that under that law, everyone treat a defined set of persons as though they were “Natural Born Citizens”. Admitting that such folks were eligible to the Presidency, would be the only way to give that distinction a literal meaning.

    If that scenario was the case, then the carelessness was in the later acts retaining the expression, “considered as”.

    It seems to me, that there is a big difference in resulting citizenship status between the two wordings, regardless of whether they are used with “natural born citizen” or just “citizen”:

    For example, if by statute such categorically designated persons “shall be” citizens of the United States then THEY THEMSELVES by circumstance of birth, ARE confirmed by the statute to be citizens of the United States with all that entitles them to.

    If on the other hand, by statute such categorically designated persons ONLY “shall be CONSIDERED” citizens of the United States then it would seem that the statute is not conferring on or confirming the US citizenship of these persons. Instead it is directing EVERYONE ELSE to consider such persons AS (though they are) citizens of the United States, instead of using language that would explicitly make them such.

    What do you think, Doc?

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2016 at 11:54 pm #

    The screw-up was my error about the 1802 Act.

    I fully agree that it is very unlikely that the First Congress as a whole used a phrase carelessly. My view is that their understanding of “natural born citizen” was based on English practice, that made natural born subjects of whomever Parliament wanted. The Constitution may well have started with only persons born in the country, but I am not persuaded that they intended that to be immutable. After all, all they were trying to do, by all accounts, was to keep foreigners from the presidency. Would they have considered Ted Cruz ever to have been a foreigner?

    As for the word “considered,” I don’t really know what that means.

    Benji Franklin: Well, Doc, I wonder how many layers of careless “screw-up” on the part of the then-legislators (some Framers), we can realistically accept,

  9. avatar
    Reality Check January 24, 2016 at 8:44 am #

    I believe that Einer Elhauge probably relied on the McElwee paper when he wrote this in his Salon piece.

    (I see that Dave B. had mentioned Elhauge’s article earlier.)

    BTW, Stephen Tochen also relied on the McElwee paper. That’s how I found it earlier this week.

    Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.

  10. avatar
    gorefan January 24, 2016 at 2:55 pm #

    Benji Franklin: “shall be CONSIDERED AS Natural Born Citizens of the United States”

    Dr. Conspiracy: As for the word “considered,” I don’t really know what that means.

    IMO, considered can only mean “are”. There are other examples of the phrase “shall be considered as” in the 1790 Act.

    After going through the naturalization process “such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.” And the children of such a person “shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    O don’t think anyone would argue that after naturalization the person is a citizen.

    Another example of the phrase “considered as” comes from Zephaniah Swift’s 1795 legal treatise on the laws of Connecticut,

    “THE people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.”

  11. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 24, 2016 at 8:50 pm #

    gorefan: IMO, considered can only mean “are”. There are other examples of the phrase “shall be considered as” in the 1790 Act.

    I’m inclined to agree with you in light of your examples.

  12. avatar
    Dave B. January 25, 2016 at 2:53 am #

    Some birther over at The Hill has come up with the most epic dog-ate-my-homework excuse for there being no record of anybody giving a reason for changing the wording of the 1790 act.
    “Their silence, on the reasons for their language change, IS itself, an admission of their blunder,”
    because, apparently, the House of Representatives of the 3rd Congress was afraid of getting
    “hung by the British, or un-elected by their own State’s Congress,”
    so they held
    “Super secret, classified meetings.”
    Because, of course,
    “From Madison’s composition of the Constitution, to his 1795 revision of the 1790 Naturalization Act, it was basically the same cast, hiding from British rule.”
    And if that sounds nuts,
    “Then why did Thomas Jefferson have to rebuild the Library of Congress?”

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2016 at 8:55 am #

    I don’t quite follow how having no naturalization authority over citizens means that Congress can’t make persons citizens at birth, who would not have been citizens at birth otherwise.

    I also don’t see the import of the distinction she places on the word “considered.” To me considered natural born citizens, implies that they have all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens, and it is well settled at law that the only distinct right of a natural born citizen is that of running for president. So, presuming that “natural born citizen” was in the 1790 Act because Congress thought it the correct phrasing, then they intended that these foreign-born citizens could run for president.

    Dave B.: “On January 2, 1795, the bill was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was James Madison. Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens: “It was only granted to them to admit aliens.” The following Monday, January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization, containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superseded.””

  14. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2016 at 10:46 am #

    It should be obvious that making citizens out of persons born abroad isn’t limited to Congress’s naturalization power from the fact that aliens can be made citizens by treaty. The House doesn’t have anything to do with that.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t quite follow how having no naturalization authority over citizens means that Congress can’t make persons citizens at birth, who would not have been citizens at birth otherwise.

  15. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 27, 2016 at 11:13 am #

    While Madison did not think that Congress had no authority to readmit expatriated citizens, there is nothing in the Constitution to preclude that. It still all comes down to what the document says as opposed to what some people think it says.

  16. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 1, 2016 at 8:57 pm #

    gorefan: IMO, considered can only mean “are”. There are other examples of the phrase “shall be considered as” in the 1790 Act.

    After going through the naturalization process “such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.” And the children of such a person “shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    O don’t think anyone would argue that after naturalization the person is a citizen.

    Another example of the phrase “considered as” comes from Zephaniah Swift’s 1795 legal treatise on the laws of Connecticut,

    “THE people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.”

    That second quote is basically the same thing as the other one. If you look at it closely what is actually saying is that they are similar to [aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighboring state in the union] OR [natural born subjects, born within the state.] Considered as is meant to confer that they are similar, but not the same.

  17. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 1, 2016 at 9:17 pm #

    “Considered as” is a form of Simile for example “light as a feather”, “fit as a fiddle”, ect. It’s not meant to say they ARE equal, but they they are similar in some respects. In the way they used it it was more of an Extended Simile otherwise known as an Analogy.

    An analogy is a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification…; a correspondence or partial similarity…; a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects”.

    The purpose of the analogy in the naturalization act was to state that those people being defined should be treated the same as natural born citizens in all respects. They were citizens treated no differently than natural born citizens, but they weren’t natural born therefor they weren’t eligible to be President.

  18. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 2, 2016 at 12:09 am #

    To those who think that the term ‘natural born citizen’ WAS defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790 I humbly ask you, “Why would a natural born citizen be defined in a Naturalization Act?” It is accepted by law that anyone born to a citizen is a citizen themselves at birth, but this is only half the requirement of being natural born because one also needs to be born there as well. It is a universal natural law that a person is a native of the place that are born… that will forever be where they are from.

    If you look at what a society is, it is a group of people involved in persistent social interaction sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. A civilization or, in this case, a country is an even more complex form of a society. Imagine if two citizens of that country had a child within that same country. That child would undeniably belong to the country because they inherited citizenship of the society through their parents and they have a natural right to the land as a native. If two citizens have a child outside of their county’s territory then they would inherit the citizenship from their parents and have a natural right to the country in which they were born as a native. In this instance there is no bond between their birth place and their inherited citizenship. If the place was Canada then they would be a natural born Canadian and a citizen of Canada. What we want is a natural born American who is also a citizen of the United States.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 2, 2016 at 5:22 pm #

    I don’t think that the term “natural born citizen” was defined by the 1790 Act, but I do think that the fact that Congress called the citizens they made in the Act “natural born citizens” tells us how they understood the term. I don’t think that there is any dispute that the First Congress had English statutes in mind when they made that provision for the children of US citizens born abroad.

    I found a Supreme Court citation a few weeks ago that said that English Statutes at the time of the ratification of the Constitution are part of the common law for US purposes (or something like that). Now I can’t find the thing, despite over an hour of looking.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: To those who think that the term ‘natural born citizen’ WAS defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790 I humbly ask you, “Why would a natural born citizen be defined in a Naturalization Act?”

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 2, 2016 at 5:37 pm #

    You can frame it however you like, but if something is considered something under the law, than it is treated under law as that thing. So if someone is “considered” a natural born citizen under the law, then they can be elected president (noting that there has never been any special right of a natural born citizen except running for President).

    Kenley Noltensmeier: An analogy is a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification…; a correspondence or partial similarity…; a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects”.

  21. avatar
    gorefan February 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: That second quote is basically the same thing as the other one. If you look at it closely what is actually saying is that they are similar to [aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighboring state in the union] OR [natural born subjects, born within the state.] Considered as is meant to confer that they are similar, but not the same.

    That’s ridiculous., Swift is listing the types of peoples (it even says so in the chapter title):

    “THE people are considered as

    1) aliens, born in some foreign country, as
    2) inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or
    3) natural born subjects, born within the state

    Aliens are not similar to citizens. Naturalized persons are citizens, not just similar to citizens.

  22. avatar
    gorefan February 2, 2016 at 6:24 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I humbly ask you, “Why would a natural born citizen be defined in a Naturalization Act?”

    Because that is the way the English Parliament did it. For example the 1708 act 7 Ann C.5,

    “An Act for Naturalizing Foreign Protestants”

    “III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the ligeance of her Majesty, her heirs and successors, shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”

  23. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2016 at 1:29 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    “Considered as” is a form of Simile for example “light as a feather”, “fit as a fiddle”, ect. It’s not meant to say they ARE equal, but they they are similar in some respects. In the way they used it it was more of an Extended Simile otherwise known as an Analogy.

    It seems that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. The docket entries for Cody Robert Judy’s failed appeal:

    No. 14-9396
    Title:
    Cody Robert Judy, Petitioner
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
    Docketed: April 20, 2015
    Linked with 15A25
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (14-4136)
    Decision Date: February 3, 2015
    Rehearing Denied: February 27, 2015

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mar 30 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 20, 2015)
    Apr 27 2015 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from petitioner.
    May 20 2015 Waiver of right of respondent Barack H. Obama, President of the United States to respond filed.
    Jun 3 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2015.
    Jun 22 2015 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 13, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
    Jun 24 2015 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
    Jun 29 2015 Application (15A25) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of June 22, 2015, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
    Jul 1 2015 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
    Jul 7 2015 Application (15A25) denied by Justice Sotomayor.
    Oct 5 2015 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
    Oct 8 2015 Case considered closed.

    Are you suggesting that his case isn’t really closed because SCOTUS used the phrase “Case considered closed” and that it is merely similar to a closed case? Because I guarantee you that if you call the Supreme Court and ask if Judy’s case is active or closed, you will be told that it is closed.

  24. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 2:08 pm #

    Rickey: It seems that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. The docket entries for Cody Robert Judy’s failed appeal:

    Are you suggesting that his case isn’t really closed because SCOTUS used the phrase “Case considered closed” and that it is merely similar to a closed case? Because I guarantee you that if you call the Supreme Court and ask if Judy’s case is active or closed, you will be told that it is closed.

    I fail to see how anything in your post directly corresponds to what I said. All you’ve given is a timeline of a case with no substance whatsoever.

  25. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 2:14 pm #

    I can easily explain both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s Ineligibility using the court’s view on previous matters. Rather than creat a huge post here, I will link you to a site that specifically covers their ineligibility.
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/25/of-naturalized-and-natural-born-the-courts-point-of-view/

  26. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2016 at 2:26 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I can easily explain both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s Ineligibility using the court’s view on previous matters.

    Then it ought to be a simple matter for Trump or some other candidate to sue and get them tossed off the ballot, which would likely give him a lock on the nomination. Yet he hasn’t. Instead he’s whining for an Iowa do-over. Perhaps he lacks the money to hire a good lawyer (rummaging in my pocket for a $20 I can lend him)….

  27. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

    Scientist: Then it ought to be a simple matter for Trump or some other candidate to sue and get them tossed off the ballot, which would likely give him a lock on the nomination.Yet he hasn’t.Instead he’s whining for an Iowa do-over.Perhaps he lacks the money to hire a good lawyer (rummaging in my pocket for a $20 I can lend him)….

    What’s happening is that Cruz’s campaign has done some very shady things. First it was the “Voting Violation” letters that were sent to the general public in Iowa. Then it was a letter going out to Cruz’s supporters basically saying that Carson was going to end his campaign after the Iowa Caucus and that they should inform all they know and suggest that they vote to Cruz since the majority of Carson’s supporters support Cruz as their 2nd choice. This created a huge issue as other things started happening within the Caucus itself. It wouldn’t be hard to conclude that it is every possible that Cruz leeched enough Carson supporters to defeat Trump. This however, is not my decision nor within my power to do anything. If Trump doesn’t want to do anything then that’s decision. I can only speculate on things based on the information that is presented.

    As far as the illegibility issue I do notice Trump slowly ramping up his involvement on the matter. It is a sensitive issue, especially when there are so many people ingrained with the wrong understanding. It creates a bad image for someone who is in the public eye. I can only assume that they have a plan in the works and that they’re just waiting to see how things pan out before they send it in motion.

  28. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2016 at 2:58 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: It is a sensitive issue, especially when there are so many people ingrained with the wrong understanding.

    There is no “wrong understanding”. When you write an important document like a Constitution, you have to use unambiguous language. If your wish is that the President have 2 citizen parents, then you must say that in plain English. For example, if instead of “35 years old” they had said “of full maturity”, people would be arguing over whether Trump is really a 2 year old, or merely acting like one.

    If you use an ambiguous term, then different people will interpret it differently. The presumption is always in favor of eligibility, so Cruz is eligible, as distasteful as he may be (and he is distasteful).

    if Cruz and Trump wanted to do something positive for the country and for humankind, they could both volunteer for the Mars mission. Problem solved.

  29. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 3:00 pm #

    Scientist: There is no “wrong understanding”.When you write an important document like a Constitution, you have to use unambiguous language.If your wish is that the President have 2 citizen parents, then you must say that in plain English.If you use an ambiguous term, then different people will interpret it differently.The presumption is always in favor of eligibility, so Cruz is eligible, as distasteful as he may be (and he is distasteful).

    if Cruz and Trump wanted to do something positive for the country and for humankind, they could both volunteer for the Mars mission.Problem solved.

    He is NOT eligible evidenced by the information that I just provided you. Read it!

  30. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: He is NOT eligible evidenced by the information that I just provided you. Read it!

    I read it. That isn’t information, it’s opinion.

    The voters will decide. End of story. No need for you to respond, because that is reality, Have a nice day.

  31. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I fail to see how anything in your post directly corresponds to what I said. All you’ve given is a timeline of a case with no substance whatsoever.

    Do I have to spell it out for you?

    You claim that the word “considered” only suggest similarity.

    I showed you that when the Supreme Court uses the phrase “considered closed,” it means closed – period.

  32. avatar
    gorefan February 3, 2016 at 3:43 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: can easily explain both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s Ineligibility using the court’s view on previous matters.

    The courts have disagreed with your opinion of Senator Rubio’s eligibility. His situation is similar to President Obama’s. When the courts have ruled in favor of President Obama, they relied on Wong Kim Ark in making their determination.

    Here is just one of almost a dozen rulings on the subject:

    “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion, and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Judge Thomas F. Stansfield, Maryland’s Circuit Court for Carroll County in Fair v. Obama

    So while Senator Cruz’s situation is unsettled, Senator Rubio’s case was settled in 1898.

  33. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 3:44 pm #

    How is it opinion? There are TWO SCOTUS cases dealing with people who were born of the same EXACT circumstances as Cruz. The Justices RULED that they were NOT citizens not just because they didn’t meet the residency requirements that caused them to lose their citizenship in the first place, but because absent of the law that was created in 1943 that made them a citizen they were NOT citizens. One cannot be a natural born citizen and not be a citizen, therefor Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen. The reason that he even has citizenship is because of that law which wasn’t created until a century and half AFTER the ratification of the Constitution… What part of Maternal citizenship (citizenship passed from mother to child by birth) had no benefit UNTIL that law don’t you understand?

  34. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2016 at 4:12 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: How is it opinion?

    Supreme Court rulings are opinions. They are even called by that term. The rulings say those persons are not covered by the 14th Amendment, not that they are ineligible to be President. But since you like the Supreme Court so much, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during arguments that she considers her grandson, born in Paris, France, to be eligible to be President when he turns 35. So there is at least 1 vote against you. I suspect it would be 9-0, but it’s moot because the case won’t go to court, as it’s delegated to Congress under the 20th Amendment.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: The Justices RULED that they were NOT citizens not just because they didn’t meet the residency requirements that caused them to lose their citizenship in the first place, but because absent of the law that was created in 1943 that made them a citizen they were NOT citizens.

    Cruz unquestionably meets the residency requirements.

  35. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 4:14 pm #

    What they fail to realize is that the Wong Kim Ark case they did NOT see him as a natural born citizen, ONLY a citizen. They only referenced natural born citizen in passing when stating “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” And they came to such a conclusion because, in spite of his parents being foreigners, the 14th Amendment (which was written AFTER the ratification of the Constitution in which the term Natural Born Citizen has never been changed) stated that those “subject to the jurisdiction” were citizens. They determined that that part was satisfied and applied to him by the fact that his parents has established a domicile within the Unites States.

    To reiterate, Wong Kim Ark was only found to be a citizen based on the exact same circumstances that Rubio was born. Had Rubio’s parents become naturalized citizens before his birth it would never had been in question, but because they weren’t citizens at the time of his birth, he is not natural born.

    This is much different than Obama’s case where he was born to a citizen mother within the united states. Neither of the conclusions for Rubio or Cruz apply to his situation as his is much more complicated.

  36. avatar
    gorefan February 3, 2016 at 4:36 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: To reiterate, Wong Kim Ark was only found to be a citizen based on the exact same circumstances that Rubio was born. Had Rubio’s parents become naturalized citizens before his birth it would never had been in question, but because they weren’t citizens at the time of his birth, he is not natural born.

    That is your opinion. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after reading the Wong decision, said that it made someone like Wong eligible to be president. And the US government in arguing the case said that a decision in Wong’s favor would make him eligible to be president. In fact the Government in their appellant brief said that the lower court erred when it ruled Wong a “natural born citizen”. But Judge Morrow never used the term “natural born”. Like Justice Gray, he only said that Wong was a citizen.

    Prominent lawyers at the time of the Wong decision said that it made him eligible to be president.

    “…a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, although his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.” William Dameron Guthrie, 1898

    Senator Rubio’s situation is the same as Wong’s.

  37. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2016 at 4:39 pm #

    Justice Ginsburg: My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.

    Justice Ginsburg: There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.

    Arguments in Nguyen and Boulais vs INS Jan 9, 2001.

  38. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 4:43 pm #

    Cruz meets the residency requirements to be a citizen, not a natural born citizen. Anyone who is given citizenship by an act of congress or law is not a natural born citizen.

    The issue was indirectly addressed by the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), in whch we find:

    The 14th Amendment “was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”

    So it is up to congressional action, but it is outside of Congress’ power to giver someone a natural born citizen status. They only have the power of naturalization.

    8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23) naturalization defined
    (a)(23) The term ”naturalization” means the conferring of nationality [NOT “citizenship” or “U.S. citizenship”, but “nationality”, which means “U.S. national”] of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

    There is nothing about the concept of “naturalization” that requires some “process”, other than the enactment of a declaratory statute. A statute can make a person a citizen at birth of territory that does not include the location where one is born. That is the naturalization process. But it is not “natural birth”, which depends only on the location of birth on a particular spot on the Earth. Whatever anyone might later want to call that spot or the territory surrounding it, the child is natural born to that spot. He is not naturalized to that spot. He may be naturalized to another spot, or territory that does not include that spot. That is a change of status, and it is called “naturalization”.

  39. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2016 at 4:52 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Cruz meets the residency requirements to be a citizen, not a natural born citizen.

    Justice Ginsburg disagrees. The majority of legal scholars disagree. So we have significant doubt. The default position is eligibility. You cannot win this argument because the default is stacked against you. My condolences….

    Kenley Noltensmeier: The 14th Amendment “was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent.

    Cruz is not covered by the 14th Amendment, but that doesn’t mean he is or is not eligible to be President. Unless you wish to argue that the 14th Amendment determines presidential eligibility, in which case naturalized citizens have the exact same rights as those born in the US. You just can’t win…

  40. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 5:07 pm #

    Justice Ginsburg has no right to say what things are and are not, it is only their opinion. Furthermore, justices are required to practice judicial restraint. Judicial restraint requires that courts not make precedent-setting holdings when the issues in a case do not require it.The court has always interpreted the principle of judicial restraint as sufficient reason to use the original (unamended) text of the Constitution before relying on the text of any subsequent Amendments, if such is possible. That’s especially true in the absence of any prior precedents based on a particular clause of the Constitution. They seek to avoid making a “first instance” interpretation of any clause when there are other precedents that can be used instead (where it can be shown that no reasonable meaning of the unused clause could possibly change the outcome.) These precedents would be a previous case or legal decision that must be followed in subsequent similar cases.

  41. avatar
    Dave B. February 3, 2016 at 5:12 pm #

    Kind of like how the issues in Rogers v. Bellei didn’t require that the court “make precedent-setting holdings” on presidential eligibility?

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Judicial restraint requires that courts not make precedent-setting holdings when the issues in a case do not require it.

  42. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 5:18 pm #

    Now you’re just trying make up excuses. Presidential eligibility was not what was in question in those cases. It was citizenship. And what they found was that without the law that gave them citizenship they were not citizens at all. And for that reason, along with what I explained earlier, it is impossible that they are natural born citizens.

  43. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2016 at 6:04 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Justice Ginsburg has no right to say what things are and are not, it is only their opinion.

    I see. Only Kenley Noltensmeier has any right to say what things are and are not…

  44. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 6:23 pm #

    Don’t attack the messenger, I am merely reciprocating words from the people who DO have the right.

  45. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2016 at 7:59 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I am merely reciprocating words from the people who DO have the right.

    How nice for you. No one cares.

  46. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 3, 2016 at 8:22 pm #

    Scientist: How nice for you.No one cares.

    Aww, how mature of you.

    I care, and as much as you say you don’t care it inevitably still concerns you. It is about the country in which we live in and the things that effect us as its citizens. To understand the politics of the present with any clarity and depth at all, it is necessary to understand history and the politics of the past. Maybe you do care, but you feel that there isn’t anything you can do about it, and feel that trying to do so is not a wise use of your time. Well, maybe it’s time you realize that the power of any political establishment rests almost entirely on the tacit guarantee that a great many people, like you, will feel this way and will not substantially act in opposition.

    You have the freedom to choose for yourself what course of action (or non-action) you want to take. However, be aware that politics affect nearly every part of our daily lives, and it’s an intangible but extremely powerful influence of how you live. You, just as much as I, are responsible for the future of your country. you owe it to those who fight, and have fought, for the rights that you have. You owe it to your children and your family who live among you. If you want to be cynical and believe your voice doesn’t matter then don’t complain to us how it turns out.

  47. avatar
    Keith February 4, 2016 at 12:05 am #

    Scientist: if Cruz and Trump wanted to do something positive for the country and for humankind, they could both volunteer for the Mars mission. Problem solved.

    No way!!!!.

    Trump would drive the Space Program into bankruptcy and Cruz would mess up the flight when he couldn’t find the edge of the Earth.

  48. avatar
    Keith February 4, 2016 at 12:43 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Now you’re just trying make up excuses. Presidential eligibility was not what was in question in those cases. It was citizenship. And what they found was that without the law that gave them citizenship they were not citizens at all.

    Correct. Now add the ruling from Minor v Happersett: There are only two sources for citizenship: natural-born and naturalized.

    SO:

    1) IF a person is a “citizen” the person is either natural born or naturalized.
    2) SCOTUS affirmed that WKA was a citizen.
    3) WKA was NOT naturalized, and could not be naturalized due to Federal Law.

    Ergo: WKA was a natural born citizen.

    Follow on: Rubio is a natural born citizen. Cruz is a natural born citizen.

    To put it a bit more mathematically (the Doc can criticize my wording):

    1) the set of “all citizens” is comprised of two subsets: “natural-born citizens” and “naturalized citizens”.
    2) the set of “all citizens who are not natural-born and who are not naturalized” is equal to the null (or empty) set.
    3) an individual who is a member of the set ‘all citizens’ is also a member of exactly one of the sets ‘natural born’ or ‘naturalized’.
    4) sentences 1 and 2 and 3 all say exactly the same thing
    5) the set “natural born citizens” is congruent with the set “citizen at (or from) birth”.
    6) the set “naturalized citizens” contains exactly zero members that are also in the set “natural born citizens” (and vice versa).
    7) an individual who is a member of the set “citizen at birth” is NOT also a member of the set “naturalized citizen”.

    ergo: all individuals who are citizens at birth are natural born citizens. No matter where they were born or what the status of their parents.

    Whether they were
    a) born in the USA with two citizen parents (e.g. John Fitzgerald Kennedy); or
    b) born in the USA with one citizen parent (e.g. Barrack Hussein Obama); or
    c) born in the USA with zero citizen parents (e.g. Wong Kim Ark or Marco Rubio); or
    d) born in the USA with undocumented immigrant parents (e.g. the children of undocumented immigrants often disparagingly called ‘anchor babies’); or
    d) born overseas with two citizen parents (e.g. John McCain); or
    e) born overseas with one citizen parents (e.g. Rafael Edward Cruz),

    they are citizens and they are not naturalized, therefore they are natural born citizens.

    And for that reason, along with what I explained earlier, it is impossible that they are natural born citizens.

    And for that reason, with what I have just explained, it is impossible that they are anything other than natural born citizens.

    Natural born or Naturalized; Not Naturalized; therefore Natural Born. End of story.

  49. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 4, 2016 at 12:52 am #

    You fail to understand one thing. The intent and meaning of the words Natural Born Citizen have NEVER been changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Without the 14th amendment, WKA would not have been a citizen. In other words, he would not have been a citizen in 1788. Considering that a natural born citizen IS a citizen, it’s impossible that WKA would have been a natural born citizen then and surely not now.

  50. avatar
    gorefan February 4, 2016 at 1:14 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Without the 14th amendment, WKA would not have been a citizen.

    Nope.

    During the Congressional debates over the 1795 Naturalization Act, Mr Hillhouse of Connecticut commenting on a proposed amendment to the law that would have required aliens with titles of nobility to first give them up before they could be naturalized. Mr. Hillhouse envisioned a scenario where a nobleman could come to the US and not take the oath renounce his titles. He included the following hypothetical example;

    “If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted.” from the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795, page 1046

    So even though nobleman was not a US citizen, his children would be natural born citizens.

  51. avatar
    Keith February 4, 2016 at 1:25 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    You fail to understand one thing. The intent and meaning of the words Natural Born Citizen have NEVER been changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788.

    Sez who?

    Without the 14th amendment, WKA would not have been a citizen.

    Yes, in fact he would have. That was the conclusion and the point of going back through all the history of the meaning of the term in the common law in the WKA case. The 14th amendment was a constitutional enshrinement of the way ‘jus soli’ was understood at the time of the ratification. What the 14th did was overturn the SCOTUS error in Scott v Sandford.

    You might argue that without the 14th Amendment, Obama would not be NBC because of the Scott v Sandalford ruling. But there are two problems with applying that argument to WKA: before Dred Scott, he would have been considered an NBC and after Dred Scott he would still have been considered an NBC. Dred Scott did not address the Asian ‘race’, only those of the African ‘race’.

    The WKA ruling demonstrated that ‘jus soli’ citizenship has never at any time in legal history meant anything other than ‘born on the soil under the jurisdiction of the government without reference to the status of the parents’ (monarchy or republic or whatever it may be).

    In other words, he would not have been a citizen in 1788. Considering that a natural born citizen IS a citizen, it’s impossible that WKA would have been a natural born citizen then and surely not now.

    In other words, yes he would have. At no time in the nation’s history would WKA be considered anything other than a natural born citizen – except to people who didn’t know any better like you and the officials in California who tried to turn him away.

  52. avatar
    gorefan February 4, 2016 at 1:27 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Without the 14th amendment, WKA would not have been a citizen.

    That’s not true according to Justice Gray

    “This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed — “born in the United States,” “naturalized in the United States,” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States.”

    The 14th Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and laws.

    During the debates over the 1795 Naturalization Act, Mr Hillhouse of Connecticut commenting on a proposed amendment to the bill that would have required aliens with titles to renounce them before becoming US citizens. He envisioned a situation where a nobleman could come to the US and refuse to renounce his titles;

    “If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted.” from the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795, page 1046

    So to the Connecticut lawyer congressman, an alien nobleman’s children would be natural born citizens.

  53. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 4, 2016 at 2:23 am #

    So you think that our laws, at least when it comes to natural born citizen, directly reflected the English Common Law which came from England where they didn’t elect Presidents, but instead had Kings and Queens?

    I shouldn’t have to point out the stark difference between the two, but for the sake of clarity I’ll say it anyway. Not just anyone can be a king or queen, it is passed down by the rules of succession. This is in contrast to the President who’s main requirement is being a natural born citizen that is elected by the people.

    Considering there really was no fear of foreign influence or anything like that when it came to kings and queens because it primarily remained in the family, what makes you think that it would be just as acceptable to give someone who was born to 2 foreigners the highest standing of a country?

  54. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2016 at 2:58 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:Blather and nonsense at great length.

    Not one word of that has the slightest thing to do with where a political candidate was born or who their parents were. Someone born in the US to ancestors who came on the Mayflower (or were here to greet the Mayflower for that matter) could be a terrific or awful President. Same with someone whose parents arrived a week before they were born or is an immigrant.

    So do I care about who the next President is in terms of their ideas and character? Absolutely. Do I care where they were born or who their parents were? Nope.

  55. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2016 at 3:03 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Without the 14th amendment, WKA would not have been a citizen. In other words, he would not have been a citizen in 1788.

    Please document an actual case from colonial America of anyone born in the Colonies who was not a citizen, other than First Nations people and slaves. I am demanding actual facts, not opinion. Case histories with links to documents.

    Thanks….In case you are wondering, I have demanded this of many who made your arguments and none have ever provided even a single case, so you have the opportunity to make history.

  56. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2016 at 3:16 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Not just anyone can be a king or queen, it is passed down by the rules of succession. This is in contrast to the President who’s main requirement is being a natural born citizen that is elected by the people.

    Considering there really was no fear of foreign influence or anything like that when it came to kings and queens because it primarily remained in the family,

    You must have missed the numerous times in English history when the lines of succession ran out and they appointed foreign kings. Scottish, Dutch, German. The current Queen is descended from the Hanoverians, the original one of whom, George I, could barely speak English. They changed the family name to Windsor during World War I. Not to mention the post-1066 kings who were all French, of course. Nor to mention that most English monarchs married foreigners (like Donald Trump) precisely to make critical alliances, so essentially none of the monarchs met your definition of natural born.

  57. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 4, 2016 at 3:19 am #

    Then that’s the problem… The founders did care. Quite a bit actually. I recommend you read Hamilton’s notes on the construction of the constitution.

  58. avatar
    Lupin February 4, 2016 at 3:24 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: what makes you think that it would be just as acceptable to give someone who was born to 2 foreigners the highest standing of a country?

    I’d hazard to say that it’s because James Madison saw no issues with dual citizenship, a position initially debated with Monroe, but eventually endorsed by then-President Jefferson. Madison, now a dual citizen, then went on to become President himself.

    There may have been some concern about divided loyalties with England during the early days of the American Revolution, but the grant of US citizenship to Lafayette and his male heirs, the later instance i mentioned above would tend to indicate that you are substantially mistaken in your assumption.

  59. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 4, 2016 at 3:38 am #

    Considering the fact that no one was a natural born citizen at the time (precisely the reason for the grandfather clause) and Lafayette’s role and importance during the war, it’s understandable.

  60. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2016 at 6:17 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Then that’s the problem… The founders did care. Quite a bit actually. I recommend you read Hamilton’s notes on the construction of the constitution.

    I did http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/const05.asp Nothing in there on the topic.

    Though he did say, “rendering the executive ineligible an infringement of the right of election-”

    But let’s cut to the chase. I’m a practical guy, not that interested in theoretical b.s. How exactly would this “foreign influence” work? Are you saying Cruz would be influenced by Raul Castro because his parents hadn’t naturalized at the time he was born? Despite the fact that he, like many of Cuban origin, including those whose parents did naturalize, is far more anti-Castro than most native-born Americans?

    And how would Canada’s influence on Cruz work in the real world, exactly?

    White House Feb 2017

    Justin Trudeau calling for President Cruz: Hello, Ted.
    Cruz: Hello, Mr. Prime Minister.
    Trudeau: Now that you are installed, you are going to cede Alaska to us, right? After all, you were born in Calgary.
    Cruz: Yes, sir. I will do as you order.
    Trudeau: And all Dunkin Donuts will be replaced by Tim Horton’s.
    Cruz: Of course.
    Trudeau: Now can you do something so at least a few Canadian teams make the Stanley Cup playoffs?
    Cruz: At your command, I will have the Boston Bruins and the Pittsburgh Penguins sent to Gitmo.
    Trudeau: OK, Ted. That’s all for now, but i will have a new list next month.
    Cruz: No problem, Justin. Au revoir,

    If you try to somehow pretend that the parents not having yet naturalized has actual real world meaning, you just look foolish. Especially since even if the parents naturalized, the child of foreign-born parents is very likely to still be a dual national. That’s right. Most countries will still consider the parents citizens even if they nationalize and their US-born citizens will inherit that citizen. So your ideas do not correspond with reality.

  61. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2016 at 6:21 am #

    Scientist: Please document an actual case from colonial America of anyone born in the Colonies who was not a citizen, other than First Nations people and slaves.

    I hope Doc will excuse me for repeating this, but Mr. Noltensmeier, like those before him, has ducked the question, whilst falsely claiming that those born here to non-citizen parents were not citizens until the 14th Amendment.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2016 at 7:02 am #

    When John Jay wrote to Washington that none but a natural born citizen be Commander in Chief, are you saying that Jay intended to exclude Washington from that position? Jay didn’t write about a grandfather clause. I think the suggestion that Washington was not considered a natural born citizen is patently absurd.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Considering the fact that no one was a natural born citizen at the time (precisely the reason for the grandfather clause) and Lafayette’s role and importance during the war, it’s understandable.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2016 at 7:04 am #

    Yes. See Supreme Court US v. Wong Kim Ark.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: So you think that our laws, at least when it comes to natural born citizen, directly reflected the English Common Law which came from England where they didn’t elect Presidents, but instead had Kings and Queens?

  64. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 4, 2016 at 8:58 am #

    It isn’t a question of thinking, the USSC and the District courts have said exactly that on numerous occasions. Our entire judicial and legal system was based on what had come before from England, in fact, the “common law of England” is specifically adopted in many/most of the early constitutions of the former colonies since that is where their sense and tradition of law came from.

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    So you think that our laws, at least when it comes to natural born citizen, directly reflected the English Common Law which came from England where they didn’t elect Presidents, but instead had Kings and Queens?

  65. avatar
    Lupin February 4, 2016 at 9:58 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    Considering the fact that no one was a natural born citizen at the time (precisely the reason for the grandfather clause) and Lafayette’s role and importance during the war, it’s understandable.

    You COULD say that Jefferson and Madison, in effect, said: “It is OK to be both America AND French, but NOT OK to be both American AND English” — but that does not make for a sound legal principle.

    Ultimately logic dictates that since it was OK to be both American AND French, ultimately the principle would be: “it is OK to be both American and XXX [insert country of your choice]”.

    Yes, I see how that might shock your xenophobic bent of mind, but I’m not responsible for what your Founders decided.

  66. avatar
    gorefan February 4, 2016 at 10:53 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I recommend you read Hamilton’s notes on the construction of the constitution.

    Do you mean this Hamilton?

    “…where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.” Alexander Hamilton, 1795

  67. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 4, 2016 at 10:15 pm #

    gorefan: Nope.

    During the Congressional debates over the 1795 Naturalization Act, Mr Hillhouse of Connecticut commenting on a proposed amendment to the law that would have required aliens with titles of nobility to first give them up before they could be naturalized.Mr. Hillhouse envisioned a scenario where a nobleman could come to the US and not take the oath renounce his titles.He included the following hypothetical example;

    “If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted.” from the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795, page 1046

    So even though nobleman was not a US citizen, his children would be natural born citizens.

    A good find, indeed. However that quote is taken out of context because if you read the whole thing they were talking about if they are going to allow them to not renounce their current title then they need to be restricted from voting or holding office. Later on he realizes that if they don’t renounce but they let them be citizens then their natural born citizen children would inherit the rights and nobility. Mr. Giles is actually the one who proposed the amendment (which made it into the final 1795 Act) but it was Rep. Hillhouse who made the comment that you see in this quote. It should be noted that NEITHER of them are a convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature.

    Hillhouse was also a contemporary of Zephaniah Swift, who likewise wrote that same year:

    “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection . . .The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)

    You may have read Michael Ramsey’s paper on “The Original Meaning of ‘Natural Born.'” Ramsey cites to Swift to show how the meaning of “natural born” conveyed the jus soli meaning from earliest post-Constitutional days:

    “Swift’s treatise on Connecticut law, mentioned above, even more clearly adopts English law. Swift directly ties the status of “subject” to birth in sovereign territory, describing “natural born subjects” as those “born within the state” and later specifically saying that the children of aliens “born in this state” are natural born subjects.86 Swift also included an explanation of the rule, based on the idea of allegiance to territorial sovereign at birth in return for protection, that closely tracks Blackstone.87″

    Like Madison’s assessment, Swift’s description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.

    Ramsey also notes the interchangeability of “subject” and “citizen” as used in the post-Revolutionary period, citing, inter alia, to the Massachusetts naturalization acts:

    “Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular names individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) “natural born subjects” of the state82 and (in others) “natural born citizens.”83 As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts refer to “natural born subjects” during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution.”

    So adoption of the term “citizen” was somewhat gradual. It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift. It was a term used by Montesquieu and other illustrious political writers. Attribution solely to Vattel is result-driven poppycock.

    Hillhouse was a Connecticut lawyer and came to congress at the same time as Zephaniah Swift. He eventually replaced Olive Ellsworth in the US Senate when Ellsworth became a Supreme Court judge.It is not surprising that he understood natural born to mean anyone born in the country. He was from Connecticut after all and that was the law in Connecticut.

    I think a lot of confusion crept in from people assuming the intent was to follow English common law. At the time, there was probably nearly 100% overlap between the Vattel criteria and the English law criteria. I think most people didn’t really ponder the question one way or the other. I think that with States granting citizenship, sometimes it was one way, (Connecticut) and sometimes it was the other. (Pennsylvania)

    The pertinent question was “What was the intent of the framers? ” I think if you examine the philosophical underpinnings of their argument for independence, it becomes clear that they were following the natural law philosophy of Vattel, not “Divine Right.”

    These are two different frameworks of “Natural Law.” If you accept the English foundation of “Divine Right of Kings”, then it is natural that men owe perpetual allegiance to the agent of God on Earth, which is the King. If you explicitly reject that framework and accept that the people have a right to decide for themselves who their rulers shall be, then it makes little sense to adhere to incompatible pieces of the old framework. But it was the custom, so I think a lot of people did. Just not the founders. They understood the distinction between the two frameworks.

    I want you to look as a series of documents…
    http://i1242.photobucket.com/albums/gg531/logicwings1/image_zpsmxnxerkg.jpeg
    http://i1242.photobucket.com/albums/gg531/logicwings1/image_zps8d8a9apu.jpeg
    http://i1242.photobucket.com/albums/gg531/logicwings1/image_zpsiujq5wuh.png
    http://i1242.photobucket.com/albums/gg531/logicwings1/image_zpsbl86dwco.jpeg

    Below is a quote from someone else to which I respond to each part below it.

    [“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)

    Like Madison’s assessment, Swift’s description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel. So adoption of the term “citizen” was somewhat gradual. It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift.]

    There’s that word “Subject” again. Seems like someone wasn’t up to speed.

    [Like Madison’s assessment,]
    Which he tossed on the ash heap in the case of James McClure.

    [Swift’s description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.]
    We have no doubts as to where he got the idea, the question is whether it was an aspect of English law that the founders intended to keep, or to jettison because of it’s incompatibility with the natural law philosophy under which they asserted a right to independence. And once again, Swift was neither a Constitutional convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature. His opinion is hearsay.

    [So adoption of the term “citizen” was somewhat gradual.]
    As in those not in the know taking awhile to catch up to what the founders had done.

    [It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift.]
    In the scope of a Nation’s history, it was an instant. The first official document of the Independent States uses the word “Citizen.” The word “Subject” (in a form analogous to citizenship) is not used.

    Jefferson deliberately chose to use the word “Citizen” as witnessed and seen here:
    http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/aug10/images/Subject_A.jpg

    It was an explicit rejection of the English law based relationship between the ruler and the ruled. And yes, it was a paradigm shift. The creation of the nation was a paradigm shift. The only other government in the world that was similar was Republique des Suisses.

    “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” -George Mason-
    And of course Madison waxes eloquently on the topic:
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s10.html

    Ellsworth – “The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution.”
    He is of course right in a sense, but not wholly right. Most of the common law was continued in the United States, but parts that were completely incompatible with the new national character were eliminated, such as “corruption of blood” or Primogeniture. As a matter of fact, the Pennsylvania legislature instructed their Supreme Court to wade through English law and inform them which parts of English law remained in effect and were consistent with the new national character. I have read that other states did the same thing.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=6qC1NICFYR0C&pg=PA174&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1SbTMawbq6WoPL1LZ7su3zFUOlkg&ci=126%2C489%2C831%2C356&edge=0

  68. avatar
    Rickey February 4, 2016 at 10:17 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    Considering the fact that no one was a natural born citizen at the time (precisely the reason for the grandfather clause) and Lafayette’s role and importance during the war, it’s understandable.

    George Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789. approximately 12 years and 9 months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

    Given the fact that the United States did not exist prior to 1776, how did Washington meet the 14-year residency requirement?

    The obvious answer is that the Founders regarded anyone who resided in the colonies prior to 1776 as retroactively a resident of the United States during those years. Since Washington was born in Virginia, he was a natural-born citizen of the United States. The grandfather clause didn’t apply to him.

  69. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 4, 2016 at 10:40 pm #

    Rickey: George Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789. approximately 12 years and 9 months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

    Given the fact that the United States did not exist prior to 1776, how did Washington meet the 14-year residency requirement?

    The obvious answer is that the Founders regarded anyone who resided in the colonies prior to 1776 as retroactively a resident of the United States during those years. Since Washington was born in Virginia, he was a natural-born citizen of the United States. The grandfather clause didn’t apply to him.

    All is true except the natural born citizen part. He was a native yes, but in order to be a natural born CITIZEN the US would’ve had to been established just before his birth. Van Buren was the first NBC

  70. avatar
    Dave B. February 4, 2016 at 11:04 pm #

    That’s a bunch of crap.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: However that quote is taken out of context because if you read the whole thing they were talking about if they are going to allow them to not renounce their current title then they need to be restricted from voting or holding office. Later on he realizes that if they don’t renounce but they let them be citizens then their natural born citizen children would inherit the rights and nobility.

  71. avatar
    Rickey February 4, 2016 at 11:28 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: All is true except the natural born citizen part. He was a native yes, but in order to be a natural born CITIZEN the US would’ve had to been established just before his birth. Van Buren was the first NBC

    But Article II, Section 1 doesn’t use the word “native.” It says that to be eligible to be President a person had to have been “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” It doesn’t say “within the United States and/or the colonies.”

    How could someone have been a resident of the United States prior to 1776? The only answer that makes any sense is that the Founders considered that people who lived and were born in the colonies effectively lived and were born in the United States.

  72. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 12:01 am #

    Rickey: But Article II, Section 1 doesn’t use the word “native.” It says that to be eligible to be President a person had to have been “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” It doesn’t say “within the United States and/or the colonies.”

    How could someone have been a resident of the United States prior to 1776? The only answer that makes any sense is that the Founders considered that people who lived and were born in the colonies effectively lived and were born in the United States.

    Looking at the text of the Constitution there was a small window of opportunity for a class of citizens, who were just simply “a citizen” to become the President. This Grandfather clause expired with the death of the last citizen born before June 22, 1788.

    “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,”

    Considering that all of the Founding Fathers were at least on July 4, 1776, British subjects, they needed to include themselves as possible Presidential candidates. These “original citizen” Presidents included, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and the last “original citizen” President was William Henry Harrison.

    If they had not included themselves, then the age requirement included in the qualifications for President would mean that America would have to wait until July 4, 1811 for the first “natural born citizen” to come of age.

    “neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years,”

    Yet, they were not so liberal in just allowing any former British subjects to be President. Note that also the qualifications for President is included a duration of residency.

    “and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    To understand why they choose 14 years, is to start to understand why they also penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” Our Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 and if we subtract 14 years we come to September 17, 1773. Nothing significant happened on this date, but it creates a state where our first “original citizen Presidents” needed to be physically present at the start of and during the War of Independence, unless like Franklin they were overseas engaged in the business of the United States. This is born out in the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America (July 7, 1798), and this is also in many of the debates on ratification.
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=520&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_FaS2::%230020521&linkText=1

    Because as stated there were no “natural born citizens” ready to be President, the age and duration of residency also created another significant point. Thirty-five minus 14 is also 21, the “age of majority.” This means that these “original citizen” Presidents would have needed to make a conscience adult decision to be an American and would have earned the right to be President, by willingly risking their lives simply by being present in the thirteen States, while this Nation fought for its independence.

    Yes, there is a small window of opportunity, when someone could have come to America and became President, without having risked their live in a War of Independence. This short period was from February 4, 1783 when Britain formally declared an end to the War of Independence until September 17, 1787. Our Founding Fathers were men of the highest principles and integrity, they said what they meant and meant what they said. In the same Constitution, that holds the qualifications for President, is written Article 1, Section 9, these same men wrote,

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    They were not going to treat this 1783 to 1789 class of “immigrant citizens” guilty of being unfaithful to America by passing a law saying so. A Bill of Attainder is a law that makes a group of citizens guilty of a crime without the benefit of a trial. Ex post facto law is a law passed after the fact to make something illegal or legal, at the time it happened. They chose instead to set a date, September 17, 1787 that allowed anyone who was an original citizen on that date regardless of place of birth to be President. If you became a citizen on September 18, 1787, it would have been too late for you to qualify to be President of the United States of America without being a natural born citizen.

    Returning to the phrase “a natural born citizen,” you can now see that the Founding Fathers made a conscience effort to insure that the office of the President of the United States of America would have been held by only those men who were loyal to the cause of the United States of America. They selected as criteria for themselves loyalty above all else. The President of the United States must be above all else loyal to this Nation, and the principles that it was established upon.

    As they pondered the Constitutional office of the President, they knew that one day their generation would pass away. Those men who proved their loyalty on the field of battle would eventually sleep under the field. This pool of men with proven loyalty to the Nation would literally die out one day. Sensing this, they knew that they could only trust the power of the office of President to a group of citizens who would have the best chance of being loyal to the country, those who only know America and only knew what it was like to be American.

    On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, “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 common sense of this was immediately and unanimously incorporated into our Constitution. It cannot be said that this was without debate, there were a few who initially thought that excluding naturalized citizens might limit the number of affluent people with money to come to and invest in the new country. This small minority was afraid that the rich would not immigrate if their opportunities were limited. The fact that there was debate is significant because it signifies that this provision was not slipped into the Constitution, in the late hours of the night.

    If they choose as a requirement for President for themselves, proven loyalty, and what they would choose for the next generation of Presidents would be “natural loyalty.” How they determined what natural loyalty is they looked toward nature. They did not need Congressional studies for a definition, as it was self-evident to them. A persons place in life comes from ones parents. This concept is found in nature, it is self-evident. Nature claims kinship, our most primitive and natural form of citizenship, from blood, while nations claim citizens from the soil, or their place of birth. The decided that the best way to protect the integrity of the office of President of the United States was a combination of the two.

    The next time the term “natural born” would be used by the first Congress. Chapter III, of the Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “a natural born citizen” was one whose parents were citizens of the United States, regardless of where they were born. They used the plural, and not singular. The majority membership of the first Congress was made up of both members from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. It is obvious that these men, who wrote the both the Constitution and first naturalization law seen that it was the parents who instilled a sense of belonging to their children. This sense of belonging would be deemed loyalty.

    The fact that they wanted parents, in the plural to be citizens is because they wanted to limit as much as possible any political and emotional attachment to the “old world.” They wanted neither the mother nor the father to influence “a natural born” candidate for President, with a sense of foreign allegiance. They made the requirements for “a natural born citizen” to be from parents who were either born in the United States or made a conscience decision to become “naturalized citizens” of the United States. They observed in the law of nature that a child follows the condition of their parents, and if the parents were split in their loyalties, the child would be split in loyalty to America.

    With the Naturalization Act of 1795, they amended the law that allowed a foreign-born child of American citizens to be called “natural born,” not because they believed they were wrong on the premise of the loyalty deriving from the condition of the parents. They were not, because they still granted “naturalized citizenship” at birth to these children. What they realized is that other nations were not following the law of nature, but were instituting feudal laws that were based on Roman law. These laws said, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, that any child born on the soil of the King, the King had the right to claim as a subject of the Crown, forever. Their intention was to insure that “a natural born citizen” would have only one natural loyalty, and could be legally claimed as a citizen of only one country.

    No one can deny that it was the intention of the Framers of the Constitution to protect the sanctity of the office of the President of the United States from foreign influence, either natural or legislated. They believed that the parents American citizenship, either natural or by choice would guard against the influence of foreign cultures. That birth within the United States of America by American citizens, made sure no other world power could ever make a claim for the allegiance of our President.

    At the end of the war of Independence, England wanted to give Americans dual citizenship. In correspondence between David Hartley an British negotiator for the Treaty of Paris, and Benjamin Franklin, in which Hartley writes, “Neither shall the independence of the United States be construed any further than as independence, absolute and unlimited, in matters of government, as well as commerce. Not into alienation, and therefore the subjects of his Britannic majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as natural born subjects, and enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the respective dominions and territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.” While some may have considered this a good thing, the Founding Fathers reject this “last minute” act of generosity for the Trojan horse it was, that tried to subvert our Nation into a nation of dual citizens, whose citizens were ultimately subjects subservient to the Crown.

    Article II, Section 1 is not about simply being born in the USA, it is about having only a complete and total loyalty to the United States of America, and no other. Any President who puts the interests of the United States of America second, has demonstrated that he is not “a natural born citizen” of this Nation, but is merely a puppet of worldly powers. Imperfect as some may believe, it is our legacy. A heritage paid for by the blood of patriots that is ours to either, guard and protect or to abandon for the always-changing temporary passions of the multitudes.

  73. avatar
    Lupin February 5, 2016 at 2:39 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Returning to the phrase “a natural born citizen,” you can now see that the Founding Fathers made a conscience effort to insure that the office of the President of the United States of America would have been held by only those men who were loyal to the cause of the United States of America.

    and

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Article II, Section 1 is not about simply being born in the USA, it is about having only a complete and total loyalty to the United States of America, and no other. Any President who puts the interests of the United States of America second, has demonstrated that he is not “a natural born citizen” of this Nation, but is merely a puppet of worldly powers. Imperfect as some may believe, it is our legacy. A heritage paid for by the blood of patriots that is ours to either, guard and protect or to abandon for the always-changing temporary passions of the multitudes.

    I just proved that these statements are completely and utterly wrong.

    Your entire “thesis” is not only unsupported by History, but it is flatly contradicted by the words and actions of both Jefferson and Madison — but then you chose to ignore my comment and not respond to it, rather than admitting you’re wrong.

    Basically, you appear to (a) pick and choose the smidgens of evidence which favor your point; (b) ignore the heap of it that contradicts it flatly and unambiguously; and (c) make up b*llsh*t for the rest.

  74. avatar
    Michael Watson February 5, 2016 at 2:59 am #

    I guess you can’t read. Made perfect sense to me. They provided the proof, but maybe you chose to over-look it because you assume you can’t be wrong. Hint: Read the document. It appears that you are confused as to when and how the first citizens became citizens as well, making up some absurd excuse that Washington must have been a natural born citizen.

  75. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2016 at 6:29 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Article II, Section 1 is not about simply being born in the USA, it is about having only a complete and total loyalty to the United States of America, and no other. Any President who puts the interests of the United States of America second, has demonstrated that he is not “a natural born citizen” of this Nation.

    So, your definition would require stripping natural born citizen status from anyone who puts the interests of the United States of America second. For example someone who ever lobbied for a foreign government or corporation would be ineligible. Those who put the private interests of even US corporations and wealthy donors ahead of the general interests of the country are out.

    On the other hand, and in the interest of total fairness, it would require that naturalized citizens and even non-citizens, who work for the benefit of the country over the benefit of private interests would be, perforce, natural born citizens, who by their nature deserve to be considered for President.

    Now, that is something I could agree with you on….

  76. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2016 at 7:24 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: It cannot be said that this was without debate, there were a few who initially thought that excluding naturalized citizens might limit the number of affluent people with money to come to and invest in the new country. This small minority was afraid that the rich would not immigrate if their opportunities were limited. The fact that there was debate is significant because it signifies that this provision was not slipped into the Constitution, in the late hours of the night.

    Perhaps you would be able to furnish the transcript of this debate or any evidence that it ever took place? Of course, I know you would never mislead us, but as they say “Trust, but verify”.

  77. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2016 at 9:41 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: However that quote is taken out of context because if you read the whole thing they were talking about if they are going to allow them to not renounce their current title then they need to be restricted from voting or holding office.

    Like the use of the phrase “considered as” you are wrong about the context of the Hillhouse statement. Mr Giles amendment specifically said that a titled alien seeking admission as a US citizen must after following all the other provisions of the Act, renounce the title of nobility befor e admission as a citizen. Mr Hillhouse wanted to go further and not have titled nobility “exist among us.” So his scenario of an alien nobleman refusing to renounce his title and those not being eligible for citizenship while still having natural born citizens is correct.

    I’m not sure what is the meaning of the next be section of text or how I’m to respond.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I want you to as a series of documents …

    Did you even look at them? This one

    http://s1242.photobucket.com/user/logicwings1/media/image_zpsmxnxerkg.jpeg.html

    It is taken from George Washington Paschal’s 1868 “The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated”

    Look at the second paragraph “The Constitution does not make the citizens …It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born”

    So in which of those two categories is Senator Rubio?

    The other PhotoBucket images are nice I suppose but as you pointed out are not by members of either the Constitutional or ratifying Conventions.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Madison waxes eloquently

    Yes, Madison shows Mason is wrong very eloquently as did James Iredell.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: parts that were completely incompatible with the new national character were eliminated, such as “corruption of blood” or Primogeniture.

    How do you know they got rid of corruption of blood, bills of attainer, and ex post facto laws?

    Jefferson used Bills of Attainer in Virginia and according to Iredell, James Mason was in favor of ex post facto laws. So there would be no confusion the Framers specifically outlawed the practices. But according to you, they didn’t care about the confusion created by the term natural born citizen and decided to just let people figure it out on their own.

    Primogeniture was outlawed by the individual states by the legislature (South Carolina finally abolished it in 1791). But again it took specific acts of the state legislatures to do away with it.

    And that is the point you miss. When the Founders/Framers made a change from the Common Law, they specifically said what the change was.

    BTW, US citizens were finally allowed to expatriate on their own in 1858.

  78. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2016 at 11:11 am #

    Lupin:

    I just proved that these statements are completely and utterly wrong.

    He managed to post some 200 lines of text and still didn’t answer my question about how Washington met the 14-year residency requirement.

    The fact is that Constitutional scholars are unanimous that the grandfather clause was inserted to ensure that patriots, such as Alexander Hamilton, who were not born in the colonies would be eligible to be President.

  79. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

    Rickey: He managed to post some 200 lines of text and still didn’t answer my question about how Washington met the 14-year residency requirement.

    The fact is that Constitutional scholars are unanimous that the grandfather clause was inserted to ensure that patriots, such as Alexander Hamilton, who were not born in the colonies would be eligible to be President.

    Because the “United States” had not existed for 14 years yet. All of the founders had been residents of the States prior to the revolution at least all of those involved in the Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, and the Constitutional Convention. By putting those specific requirements in, particularly the resident requirement and cutoff date, it allowed them to exclude those that immigrated here during the window of peace… As I explained in my post. Let me know if I have to spell it out for you if you still don’t understand.

  80. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2016 at 4:14 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Because the “United States” had not existed for 14 years yet. All of the founders had been residents of the States prior to the revolution at least all of those involved in the Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, and the Constitutional Convention. By putting those specific requirements in, particularly the resident requirement and cutoff date, it allowed them to exclude those that immigrated here during the window of peace… As I explained in my post. Let me know if I have to spell it out for you if you still don’t understand.

    You just make things up and state them as fact. Such is why no court will listen to you. Show us someone stating that Washington was not a natural born citizen. If such was the case, it should be easy to find some early scholarship stating that. Of course, there is none. Everyone said such provision was for the foreign born. In the convention, they discussed limiting Congress to natives but it was pointed out that an exception should be made for the foreign born who participated in the revolution. No on suggested any limit on natives. Maine had a requirement that their Governor be a natural born citizen with no grandfather clause. I believe 2 or 3 of their first Governors were born before 1776. How do you explain that? Since you won’t do any research yourself, below is some authority for you. Where is your authority?

    “It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)

    “The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States pg. 170, 1885

    “The next clause relates to eligibility to the office of President (the same rules applying to the Vice-President, as we have seen). He must either be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. This latter clause was intended to make eligible one who, though not a native, was a citizen at the date of the Constitution, if he had been fourteen years a resident of the United States. It made Hamilton eligible but not Gallatin. Thirty-five years of age is requisite to eligibility.” The John Randolph Tucker, Constitution of the United States: A critical discussion of its genesis, pg. 711 (1899).

    “The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1866)

    “He must be a natural-born citizen. No foreign-born person can fill the highest office in our government. This provision was made to guard against foreign influence, and the intrigues of ambitious foreigners for this position of honor and trust. One exception to this rule, however, was made in the Constitution: a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, though a naturalized citizen, could hold the office of President. This exception was made because of the many citizens of foreign birth who had risked their lives and spent their fortunes in the protection of their adopted country through the bloody war of the Revolution. To have denied them any privileges which were given the native-born citizens would have been gross injustice. As all such persons have long since died, this provision no longer has any force.” The civil government of the United States: A text-book, for the use of all schools in which the subject is taught, pg. 153-54 (1889)

    “At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, however, many prominent inhabitants were of foreign birth, some of whom were members of the Convention. These were excepted from the general rule. Whether it was wise to forever prohibit citizens of alien birth, except those in being at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, from aspiring to the high office of President is open to question, for certainly many able, distinguished and patriotic citizens of the United States have been foreign born. But the evident purpose of the restriction was to make the office purely American. Nothing in the clause debars women from the presidency; but this possibility was probably not contemplated by the Convention.” Horace Jewell Fenton, Constitutional

    “The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1906)

    “OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION.”—The declaration of independence of 1776, invested all those persons with the privilege of citizenship who resided in the country at time, and who adhered to the interests of the colonies. (Ingliss v. The Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet, 99, 121.) United States v. Ritchie, 17 How. 540; Paschal’s Annotated Digest, note 350, p. 209. There can be few of the class of the foreign born, such as Alexander Hamilton, who are now surviving, who are eligible to the presidency. Considering the ages of all such, no person of foreign birth can now ever be President of the United States under this Constitution. (See Story’s Const. § 1479 ; Journals of Convention, 267, 325, 361.) George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED, pg. 168 (1868)

  81. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 5:14 pm #

    DId you even read what you wrote? The evidence is all there.

    ballantine: Show us someone stating that Washington was not a natural born citizen. If such was the case, it should be easy to find some early scholarship stating that. Of course, there is none.

    Of course there none, why would there be? Given that a natural born citizen wasn’t even possible UNTIL they were citizens of the united states. Their children at that point were then the first natural born citizens. This is what we call a straw-man’s argument just like saying “show me where in the constitution it says what a natural born citizens is?”.

    “…and been fourteen Years a RESIDENT within the United States”. Notice how it says resident and not citizen.

    ballantine: Maine had a requirement that their Governor be a natural born citizen with no grandfather clause. I believe 2 or 3 of their first Governors were born before 1776. How do you explain that?

    Hmm lets see. The Declaration of Independence announced that the thirteen American colonies regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign states to form a new nation—the United States of America. What 13 colonies became states again? Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Where was Maine? When did they decide to succeed from Massachusetts and become a part of the United States? On March 15, 1820, Maine was admitted to the Union as the 23rd state under the Missouri Compromise.

    “The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.

    This accounts for the use of the word resident in that para∣graph of the new constitution, which describes the qualifica∣tions of the president of the United States. The senators must be citizens nine years, and the representatives seven years; but it is not said, that the president must be a citizen for fourteen years. The thing was impossible, for independence was then not quite twelve years declared; therefore the word resident was introduced in order to comprehend time before the declaration of independence.

    By the same paragraph, the distinction between a citizen and a resident is constitutionally recognized; for tho’ it is necessary, that the president must have been “fourteen years a resident,” it is sufficient for him to have become a citizen “at the time of the adoption of the constitution.” By this it is acknowledged, that one may be much longer a resident within the United States, than a citizen of the same. The precision of this paragraph, in respect to language, is worthy of observation. It is not said, that the president must have been a resident in, or an inhabitant of the United States, for fourteen years. The word used is within, which, as explained by Doctor Johnson, means, “in the compass of,”—”the inclosure of.” The sentence, therefore, when analysed, means nothing more than that the president must have been a resident within the limits of the United States for fourteen years.

    Though the states have not existed as states for fourteen years; yet, their geographical boundaries, or limits, have existed from the first settlement of America. But to proceed with inferences. From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, be∣longs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmit∣ted it to their offspring. The children of those who died be∣fore the revolution, who are now citizens, must have acquired that privilege in their own right, and by their own personal act; that is, by joining their country at or since the revolution.”

    A dissertation on the manner of acquiring the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States. Ramsay, David, 1749-1815.

    I’m getting tired of this. If you’re going to come at me and say that I have no idea what I’m talking about and that I should do some research, you better make sure YOU know what you’re talking about first.

  82. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2016 at 5:31 pm #

    Hey, Kenley Noltensmeier, you big fat liar, where are Hamilton’s notes and the transcripts of the extensive debate on the natural born citizen clause?

  83. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2016 at 5:45 pm #

    Is that supposed to be a response?

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    On March 15, 1820, Maine was admitted to the Union as the 23rd state under the Missouri Compromise.

    Maine was admitted in 1820 and said its Governor must be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. Their first few Governors were born in the colony of Mass. prior to 1776. Apparently no one agreed with your definition as they were clearly considered natural born citizens of the United States.

    A dissertation on the manner of acquiring the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States. Ramsay, David, 1749-1815.

    After all the authority I cite, all you can cite is Ramsey, a sore-loser, who wrote his dissertation to give to Congress to try to overturn his election loss to William Smith. Madison said he was wrong and he lost his vote in congress 36 to 1. You are actually citing an authority that was rejected by Congress and the father of the Constitution. The Ramsey/Smith affair is thus further evidence that you are wrong.

    I’m getting tired of this. If you’re going to come at me and say that I have no idea what I’m talking about and that I should do some research, you better make sure YOU know what you’re talking about first.

    Getting tired of embarrassing yourself? Now can you present any actual authority that actually supports you? We know you can not.

  84. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2016 at 5:54 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    What they fail to realize is that the Wong Kim Ark case they did NOT see him as a natural born citizen, ONLY a citizen.

    An out and out lie. The court said natural born citizen meant the same thing as natural born subject which it clearly stated applied to persons’ of Wong’s status. Then it said the 14th Amendment was declaratory of the same rule, i.e., meant the same thing as natural born citizen. No court or mainstream legal authority has since said they mean different things. Really doesn’t matter if you understand this as court after court has looked to Wong Kim Ark to define the term as judges appear to be able to read English.

  85. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2016 at 5:55 pm #

    Scientist:
    Hey, Kenley Noltensmeier, you big fat liar, where are Hamilton’s notes and the transcripts of the extensive debate on the natural born citizen clause?

    Of course, this is another lie. There are no such notes or transcripts.

  86. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 8:28 pm #

    It’s been brought to my attention that this same subject was was spoke about before on this very site. Many of the same exact points I have been making were said along with more that I was about to provide. However, after further reading I can already see what a waste of time it will be to try to convince people like yourselves otherwise. It’s apparent that there is a complete refusal to grasp the facts, at least ones that disrupt your understanding, and the need to cite opinion as facts so as to some how disprove the facts.

    The very thing that is causing this absurdity is the confusion of what a natural born citizen really is. If you were to ask me if Washington was natural born, I would say yes. But a natural born citizen? Of the colony of Virginia, yes… United States, no. He was not born into United States citizenship neither by parentage nor by a government that never existed until years after his birth. I honestly don’t understand how someone can’t wrap their head around this.

    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a CITIZEN of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a CITIZEN of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    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.

    It is apparent that they understood that none of them would meet the requirement if it were “fourteen Years a CITIZEN” which wouldn’t make sense to begin with considering if they’re a natural born citizen it would have to apply. They made it only a residency requirement which, contrary to what you want to believe, Washington satisfied.

    The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or SUBJECTS of any Foreign State.

    The above shows that they understood that there was a difference between a citizen and a subject and that some, if not many, outside the United States still followed English common law. And one last thing, It’s not that English common law wasn’t what they established as the grounds of their framework, it was, but many of the things that they did not agree with and changed were influenced by something else. I get tired of this notion that somehow because our nation was based on “X”, it absolutely could not have been influenced by “Y” when there is factual evidence of both. It’s a stupid and completely immature cop-out.

  87. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2016 at 8:34 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: It’s a stupid and completely immature cop-out.

    Said the lying liar who claimed to have Hamilton’s notes and transcripts of debates on the natural born citizen clause. Lying liar.

  88. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 8:36 pm #

    Scientist: Said the lying liar who claimed to have Hamilton’s notes and transcripts of debates on the natural born citizen clause.Lying liar.

    I said no such thing. I suggest you go back and read. You’re fully capable of finding them yourself, I shouldn’t have to hold your hand.

  89. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 8:43 pm #

    The notes themselves don’t state what a natural born citizen is and I never claimed that they did. Rather, the notes on the back and forth discussions and arguments that took place coincide with, and adds credence to, why their natural born citizen requirement was both needed and why it should be something as limiting as it is.

  90. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2016 at 8:45 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I said no such thing. I suggest you go back and read.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: The founders did care. Quite a bit actually. I recommend you read Hamilton’s notes on the construction of the constitution.

    Show me where Hamilton’s notes mention natural born citizen.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: The common sense of this was immediately and unanimously incorporated into our Constitution. It cannot be said that this was without debate, there were a few who initially thought that excluding naturalized citizens might limit the number of affluent people with money to come to and invest in the new country. This small minority was afraid that the rich would not immigrate if their opportunities were limited. The fact that there was debate is significant because it signifies that this provision was not slipped into the Constitution, in the late hours of the night.

    What is your evidence that it was debated? And if it was unanimous, where was the debate and who opposed it, being as it was unanimous?

  91. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2016 at 8:47 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Rather, the notes on the back and forth discussions and arguments that took place coincide with, and adds credence to, why their natural born citizen requirement was both needed and why it should be something as limiting as it is.

    What specifically in the notes supports your definition of NBC? Quote whatever sections you believe are relevant to any of your arguments.

  92. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2016 at 8:50 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: A dissertation on the manner of acquiring the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States. Ramsay, David, 1749-1815.

    You cite Dr. Ramsay when his theory on birthright citizenship was expressly rejected by James Madison. Not much of an expert if Madison rejected his theories.

  93. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 8:58 pm #

    gorefan: You cite Dr. Ramsay when his theory on birthright citizenship was expressly rejected by James Madison.Not much of an expert if Madison rejected his theories.

    Even thirty years later Madison discussed how Ramsay was wrong on birthright citizenship.

    And what exactly does this have to do with the residency requirement? Lol.

  94. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2016 at 9:17 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Better start reading, Scientist.

    You’re hilarious. Nothing in there about a debate over natural born citizen. If you claim otherwise quote it with page #. Lying liar.

  95. avatar
    Ballantine February 5, 2016 at 9:23 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    It’s been brought to my attention that this same subject was was spoke about before on this very site. Many of the same exact points I have been making were said along with more that I was about to provide. However, after further reading I can already see what a waste of time it will be to try to convince people like yourselves otherwise.

    Again, no substantive response.

    You have shown to be lier and, when challenged, cannot cite any legal authority to support your claims, other than someone who had their arguments pretty much laughed out of Congress. Great argument. I suggest you confer with someone who has an actual legal education before you make more of a fool of yourself. And there are no Hamilton notes that support you. More lies.

  96. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2016 at 9:27 pm #

    From Wikipedia:

    On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

    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 Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[28]

    While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen, as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen”, and the residency requirement to 14 years, without recorded explanation after receiving Jay’s letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[29]

    It was changed without recorded explanation and accepted without further recorded debate.

    No debate, no unanimous with a minority opposed (a contradiction in terms). Kenley Noltensmeier is a lying liar.

  97. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2016 at 9:34 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: And what exactly does this have to do with the residency requirement? Lol.

    I guess you didn’t read the last paragraph of the Ramsay quote that you provided. Madison rejected that entire paragraph. So why should we listen to him?

    BTW, which of the two categories in your Photobucket image does Rubio fit into? Natural, home born or Alien, foreign born? It is your image, you specifically asked me to look at it. So into which category would the author George Washington Paschal put Rubio?

  98. avatar
    Ballantine February 5, 2016 at 9:37 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    Better start reading, Scientist.
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1

    He would see that the only relevant discussion is whether congressmen should be natives at a time when it was proposed that Congrss pick the President or he be president of the Senate. Madison and Hamilton thought such was a bad idea as they didn’t fear foreigners very much. Wilson was deeply offended that foreign born people like himself would be excluded from the government. Thus, a grandfather clause was suggested. I hope you are taking notes and leaning something as, so far, everything you have said is wrong.

    Are you ever going to show us authority that Washington was not natural born or actually counter the multitude of authority I cited that you are wrong? Of course not, as you cannot. Why not admit it before you lose any shred of credibility you have left.

  99. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 10:16 pm #

    I explained why. If you can’t understand why or agree, well… Sorry, I can’t fix stupid. Its also funny how this “Washington was a natural born citizen” theory is completely nonexistent outside of this site… I wonder why that is.

    As far as the notes go… You sound so sure, yet you want me to cite the discussion that took place. Again, they weren’t talking specifically about natural born citizen, but the discussion goes hand in hand with why something as such was necessary.

  100. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 10:18 pm #

    I will give you a hint. It was the discussion/argument that took place when they were trying to figure out how elections should work which ultimately led to the discussion of the requirement for president and other members.

  101. avatar
    Ballantine February 5, 2016 at 10:23 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    I explained why. If you can’t understand why or agree, well… Sorry, I can’t fix stupid. Its also funny how this “Washington was a natural born citizen” theory is completely nonexistent outside of this site… I wonder why that is.

    As far as the notes go… You sound so sure, yet you want me to cite the discussion that took place. Again, they weren’t talking specifically about natural born citizen, but the discussion goes hand in hand with why something as such was necessary.

    No, you made no argument. I cited authority. You cited one person whose paper was rejected by everyone. You have no other argument other than your opinion.

    And, of course, you cannot cite any notes that support you. Hamilton and Madison did not want any restrictions on office holding in the convention. You are simply a lier.

  102. avatar
    Ballantine February 5, 2016 at 10:26 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier:
    I will give you a hint. It was the discussion/argument that took place when they were trying to figure out how elections should work which ultimately led to the discussion of the requirement for president and other members.

    So discussions that actully had nothing to do with presidential eligibility except in your own mind. Again, another lie.

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2016 at 10:39 pm #

    Let me see if I follow this: You want us to read something you won’t reference, and from it draw a conclusion based on an argument you won’t make.

    Is that about it? I hope you’re not putting off anything important waiting for this to happen.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: As far as the notes go… You sound so sure, yet you want me to cite the discussion that took place.

  104. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2016 at 10:52 pm #

    It is the way of the birther.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Let me see if I follow this: You want us to read something you won’t reference, and from it draw a conclusion based on an argument you won’t make.

  105. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 5, 2016 at 11:35 pm #

    So it’s okay for you guys to do it, but not for anyone that you say is wrong? Got it. It all makes sense now. As I stated earlier, I’m done catering to ignorance. I’ve wasted enough time on this. Especially when it gets to the point where I realize that many of the things I’ve been criticized for, like quoting a certain person or discrediting another, are often used by you guys as well; either towards me or other responses that I’ve seen.

    Believe it or not, I was like you guys once, but I didn’t waste hundreds of hours just to get led on a wild goose chase because you’re too lazy to do it on your own. I don’t have thousands of bookmarks or a “debunker’s guide to Obama conspiracy theories” to refer to. Nor do I have 5 other buddies here to jump to the occasion when they think they have something of merit to say when more often than not it’s just nonsense meant to distract and direct the discussion to something else. Nope, it’s just me and my memory. So forgive me if I seem a bit agitated at the thought of going through the same crap I put myself through by holding your hand and wiping your ass too.

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2016 at 12:02 am #

    That’s not my fault. If you’re going to try to uphold a position on the Internet, you have to do the work. I think the popular saying is “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

    In fact I’ve read all of the relevant material from Farrand, and that’s how I know there’s nothing there.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: I don’t have thousands of bookmarks or a “debunker’s guide to Obama conspiracy theories” to refer to.

  107. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 1:40 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Because the “United States” had not existed for 14 years yet. All of the founders had been residents of the States prior to the revolution at least all of those involved in the Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, and the Constitutional Convention. By putting those specific requirements in, particularly the resident requirement and cutoff date, it allowed them to exclude those that immigrated here during the window of peace… As I explained in my post. Let me know if I have to spell it out for you if you still don’t understand.

    You haven’t even spelled it out for yourself and you haven’t answered my question.

    You admit that the United States had not existed for 14 years at the time of Washington’s inauguration, yet Washington met the requirement to be “fourteen years a resident within the United States. Not within the United States and the Colonies. Not within North America. Within the United States.

    You can dance around the question and misdirect all you want, but you still haven’t explained how Washington could have lived for 14 years in a country which had existed for fewer than 13 years. You try to obscure this by conflating the 14-year residency requirement with the so-called “grandfather clause.”

    Article II Section 1 required every citizen, whether born in one of the colonies or born in a foreign country, to have lived in the United States for 14 years to be eligible for the presidency. If the Founders literally meant the United States, they took the entirely illogical step of drafting a Constitution which said that no one was eligible to be President until July 4, 1790.

    The only logical conclusion is that the Founders regarded citizens who were born in the colonies as having been born in the United States. Thus Washington had not only lived in the United States for more than 14 years, he was born in the United States and was a natural-born citizen. Of course, you cannot admit that because it trashes the theory that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents, since Washington’s father died in 1743.

    And then we have this, from Ron Chernow’s acclaimed biography, “Alexander Hamilton”:

    It has been speculated that Hamilton slipped a clause into the Constitution allowing him to become eligible for the presidency. The final document stated that the president had to be at least thirty-five and either native born “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Since Hamilton was away from Philadelphia when a committee formulated this proposal, it seems unlikely that he had any influence upon it. (The Penguin Press, p. 238)

    Thus it is apparent that Chernow, like every other historian who has looked at the subject, is convinced that the so-called “grandfather clause” applied only to men who, such as Hamilton, were born in a foreign country. Since the grandfather clause did not apply to George Washington, it is crystal clear that he was regarded as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    And you know who else agrees with Chernow? Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”:

    It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. [emphasis added] (available at Google Books, Vol. 3, pp. 332-333.

  108. avatar
    Kenley Noltensmeier February 6, 2016 at 2:52 am #

    Rickey: The only logical conclusion is that the Founders regarded citizens who were born in the colonies as having been born in the United States. Thus Washington had not only lived in the United States for more than 14 years, he was born in the United States and was a natural-born citizen. Of course, you cannot admit that because it trashes the theory that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents, since Washington’s father died in 1743

    Hey look, you figured it out lol… And then you ruined it by making that absurd natural born claim again. I don’t know how many times I can say it. He was born in what is now the Unites States. He was not born a citizen of the united states, he was born a citizen of Virginia who, at the time of his birth, was under British rule and wasn’t a part of the United States yet. You cannot be born a citizen of a government that doesn’t exist.

    The United States is but a broad term for the collection of states. The land making up the collective has changed over time, but the fact that someone resided in it before it became a part of the collective does not change. Virginia is but one state that existed before and after the United States’ inception. Simply becoming part of something greater does not change the time in which you were a resident of it.

    Those that left before the Declaration of Independence and came back afterward lost everything they had. Even though they may have been born there and had a right to land and property before. They missed their chance to become citizens and instead were immediately labeled as aliens to them.

    That although born before the Revolution, they are equally incapable with those born subsequent to that event of inheriting or transmitting the inheritance of lands in this country. The British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America after the treaty of peace, lost their character of British subjects. And our doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country and adhering to the British government, they lost, or, perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of American citizens.

    Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor 28 U.S. 99 (1830)

  109. avatar
    Scientist February 6, 2016 at 6:35 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: As far as the notes go… You sound so sure, yet you want me to cite the discussion that took place. Again, they weren’t talking specifically about natural born citizen, but the discussion goes hand in hand with why something as such was necessary.

    Cite the discussion you believe supports your position. Why is that so difficult? Just say page x, line y. And it isn’t laziness on my part; not being a mind reader how would I know which statements you believe support your claims?

    Moreover, the issue is not whether the natural born citizen clause was seen as necessary-whether or not one would agree that it was or was not-but whether it means what you claim.

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you said in your post of February 5 at 12:01 AM the following: “The fact that there was debate is significant because it signifies that this provision was not slipped into the Constitution, in the late hours of the night.” Now you say that the debate wasn’t on this provision-the NBC clause-but on something that might be related to it, That make you a lying, liar, Sir.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2016 at 7:24 am #

    Guess again. What you describe is exactly the situation of Congressman Smith, who was born in Charleston and was in Europe during the Revolution. When he returned he was elected to Congress. The challenge to him was that he had returned too recently to be a citizen long enough to meet the requirement for a Congressman. Congress rejected that position, with Madison in the lead making the argument that Smith was a citizen from birth.

    Let’s see–agree with the guy who is the principal author of the Constitution, or a crackpot on the Internet? This is not a hard question.

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Those that left before the Declaration of Independence and came back afterward lost everything they had. Even though they may have been born there and had a right to land and property before. They missed their chance to become citizens and instead were immediately labeled as aliens to them.

  111. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2016 at 9:29 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Of course there none, why would there be? Given that a natural born citizen wasn’t even possible UNTIL they were citizens of the united states. Their children at that point were then the first natural born citizens. This is what we call a straw-man’s argument just like saying “show me where in the constitution it says what a natural born citizens is?”.

    This is complete and utter rubbish.

    The ‘colonies’ all had ‘natural born citizens’ who were at the same time subjects of the crown.

    When the colonies severed their relationship with the crown those ‘natural born citizens’ became, at that instant, citizens of the United States.

    There was no disjoint period of time when the citizens of the colonies lost their status of ‘natural born citizens’. The State Governments are the natural successor in law of the corresponding Colonial Governments.

    The same relationship that made the citizens of the Colonies subjects of the Crown, naturally, seamlessly, and without disjoint made them instantly citizens of the United States at the instant of its birth – and thus, Colonial Natural Born Citizens naturally, seamlessly, and without disjoint became Natural Born Citizens of the United States.

    The 14th Amendment repeats this in no uncertain terms: “all persons born in the United States”. Washington was born in Virginia. Virginia is one of the United States. Therefore Washington was born in the United States.

    Here is a simile for you that has nothing to do with nations.

    You have worked for Acme Radiators for 20 years. Acme Radiators is owned by Monopoly Enterprises who start pulling resources from Acme and makes it really hard to make a profit and flourish. Actually ME is doing the same thing to its other company Secure Lapbelts. So Acme and Secure get together and achieve an employee buyout and form a new company called United Autoparts.

    In 5 years you retire and at your retirement banquet you get a Gold Watch for your 25 years of service to the company.

    But, but, but, that can’t be! You only worked for United for 5 years!

    Yeah but you worked for Acme for 25 years!

    So did that first 20 years of work for Acme go for naught? Did it not happen? Do you deserve that Gold Watch or not?

  112. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2016 at 9:42 am #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: Its also funny how this “Washington was a natural born citizen” theory is completely nonexistent outside of this site… I wonder why that is.

    I can answer that question so stop wondering: it is because your assertion is simply and authoritatively false, without merit, and not worth discussing. You also will not find a discussion about ‘water is wet’ or ‘north is a direction’.

    There is no argument AGAINST the NBC status of Washington (and most of the other founding generation) ANYWHERE other than the minds and blogs of fringe conspiracy theorists and their sycophants.

    It is simple existential fact that George Washington (and most of the founding generation) were NBC.

    This is a simple assertion of FACT, not a discussion about a ‘theory’.

  113. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2016 at 12:05 pm #

    The idea that Washington wasn’t a natural born citizen tends to coexist with the notion that the Federal Convention included the natural born citizen qualification so Alexander Hamilton couldn’t be president.

    Keith: Kenley Noltensmeier: Its also funny how this “Washington was a natural born citizen” theory is completely nonexistent outside of this site… I wonder why that is.

    I can answer that question so stop wondering: it is because your assertion is simply and authoritatively false, without merit, and not worth discussing. You also will not find a discussion about ‘water is wet’ or ‘north is a direction’.

    There is no argument AGAINST the NBC status of Washington (and most of the other founding generation) ANYWHERE other than the minds and blogs of fringe conspiracy theorists and their sycophants.

    It is simple existential fact that George Washington (and most of the founding generation) were NBC.

    This is a simple assertion of FACT, not a discussion about a ‘theory’.

  114. avatar
    Lupin February 6, 2016 at 12:11 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: As I stated earlier, I’m done catering to ignorance. I’ve wasted enough time on this.

    Can I say again that you’ve wasted hours of posting here but have not responded to any of my posts or disputed the evidence from your own Founders which I brought up that totally disproved your xenophobic fantasies.

    You started here as a would-be serious poster and you end up exposed as a flim-flam.

  115. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2016 at 12:11 pm #

    And then there’s the Charming Betsy, in which Jarred Shattuck, who “was born in Connecticut before the American Revolution,” is described by Chief Justice Marshall– veteran of the Revolution and personal friend of George Washington– as having been “born in the United States.”

    Rickey: The only logical conclusion is that the Founders regarded citizens who were born in the colonies as having been born in the United States.

  116. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2016 at 12:21 pm #

    Kenley Noltensmeier: He was born in what is now the Unites States. He was not born a citizen of the united states, he was born a citizen of Virginia who, at the time of his birth, was under British rule and wasn’t a part of the United States yet. You cannot be born a citizen of a government that doesn’t exist.

    You also can’t reside in a country which doesn’t exist, yet Washington met the 14-year residency requirement less than 13 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

    You can’t have it both ways. The only way George Washington could have resided in the United States for 14 years as of April 30, 1789 was because the Founders considered residing in the colonies prior to the Declaration the same as having resided in the United States.

    I notice that you utterly failed to respond to my evidence that the so-called “grandfather clause” which you claim qualified Washington for the office of president in fact applied only to patriots who were born in foreign countries

    Those that left before the Declaration of Independence and came back afterward lost everything they had. Even though they may have been born there and had a right to land and property before. They missed their chance to become citizens and instead were immediately labeled as aliens to them.

    Wrong again. As Doc has pointed out, you need only look at the case of William Loughton Smith, who was born in South Carolina and was sent abroad to study at the age of 12. He returned to South Carolina shortly after the Treaty of Paris. Not only did he not lose anything, he went on to serve five terms in the House of Representatives without having to be naturalized, because he was considered to have been born in the United States.

    Cherry picking a case, as you have done with Inglis, does nothing to support your position. Inglis was born in New York and lived in New York, under British control, for the duration of the Revolution. He was still a child when he was taken to England either the day before or the day of the British evacuation of New York on November 25, 1783. He eventually settled in Nova Scotia and never returned to the United States. That is why his birth in New York did not confer United States citizenship upon him.

    Notably, you left out this important part of the Inglis decision:

    The settled doctrine in this country is that a person born here, but who left the country before the declaration of independence and never returned here, became an alien and incapable of taking lands subsequently by descent.

    If Inglis had returned to the United States shortly after reaching his majority, he would have been regarded as a natural-born citizen.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html