Tag Archives: Marshall

Madison v. Madison (Updated)

by Dr. Conspiracy on 25. May, 2009 in Citizenship, Featured Articles

“Constitutional researcher” P. A. Madison plays fast and loose with his sources.

The two “Madisons” are contemporary self-identified “constitutional researcher” P. A. Madison, author of an article on the Federalist Blog that is the topic for discussion here, and James Madison, framer of the Constitution, Congressman and 4th President of the United States.

This web site recently featured President James Madison in the article James Madison on Birth and Allegiance.

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States. Congress, Thomas Hart Benton

P. A. Madison, on the other hand asserts the opposite, that place of birth alone does not and cannot grant citizenship in his article, Defining Natural-Born Citizen. We know P. A. Madison from an earlier article challenging the citizenship of children born in the United States to illegal aliens, something true today under the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. P. A. Madison disagrees with that decision and presents an alternate view of history (from the legal and judicial survey in the Wong decision) in which parentage matters. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 93 }

Defining Natural Born Citizen

by Dr. Conspiracy on 02. May, 2009 in Citizenship

Hollister v. Soetoro

Natural born citizen

While coming tantalizingly close, no US Court  has ever decided the definition of “natural born citizen”. The term was not explained in the debates of the Constitutional Convention, nor the state legislatures when it was ratified, nor by individual framers in their speeches, letters or papers. Where do we go for a definition–to an 18th century Swiss philosopher–to an appeal to our shared prejudices?

The US Constitution is replete with terms that it doesn’t define: citizen, impeachment, felonies, treason, bribery, bankruptcy, warrants, grand jury and attainder. These are, however, familiar terms in the common law. The Supreme Court wrote in the case of Smith v. Alabama (1888) 124 U.S. 465:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 62 }

Barack Obama is a Communist

by Dr. Conspiracy on 31. Dec, 2008 in Associations

I grew up in the 1950′s when people actually did call one other communists. And in the 1930′s and 1940′s we actually had communists in intellectual circles. It was an interesting idea to be explored back then, before the communist experiments around the world showed where that particular philosophy led. But, by jingo, there’s communists in the wood pile again. Here’s a quote from one of the more vociferous anti-Obama web sites, TheObamaFile.com:

Barack Obama was born of Communist activists, mentored by a communist writer and activist, spent his college days hanging around radical activists, worked as a radical community organizer learning the radical tactics of Alinsky, kept contact with radicals through the years, attends a radical church, and today lends his political skill to the international goals of radical activists, and has radicals working on his campaign. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 15 }

Natural born citizen

by Dr. Conspiracy on 17. Dec, 2008 in Citizenship

With this odd fellow we elected President has come discussion about the Constitutional requirements for being President, and in particular that pesky little phrase “natural born citizen”. There are some very long (and some long-winded) discussions about that this means. I personally think the thing is being over analyzed.

I hit the Concise Oxford English Dictionary for the “old meaning” of the term, and it provided a very simple definition: “having a position by birth”, so “natural born citizen” means being a citizen at birth. There’s nothing new here, and indeed this is what is usually understood by the term. If you look at all the uses of “natural born”, it means “born with” some characteristic, e.g. natural-born storyteller, natural-born swimmer, natural-born athlete, natural-born mathematician, natural-born musician, and on and one. A natural born citizen is just someone born with the quality of being a citizen.

At first blush, this would seem to be a slam dunk answer for Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship, since the fourteenth amendment defines: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”. There’s no question in my mind that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Some quibble about the latter part: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Keep in mind that now we are talking about citizenship in general, not the qualifications for President. Some argue that the children of non-citizens born in the United States should not be citizens because they are subject to the government of their parents, that they have divided jurisdiction. This non-citizenship for the children of non-citizens would be a big surprise to hundreds of thousands of Americans with US Birth Certificates and carrying US Passports, and to the US State Department and most of the population. However, the question of citizenship for the children of non-citizens was settled long ago by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born in the US, the child of two Chinese temporary workers. He tried to re-enter the country and was denied entry because he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court in a 6-2 vote declared that he was indeed a citizen. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 26 }