Skip to comments.Constitution Day - 17 Sep 1787 - Revisit and Learn A Lesson From History
Posted on 09/20/2020 3:48:55 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
Constitution Day 17 Sep 2020: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided No It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret). During the process of developing the U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. At some point, he also suggested to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Another version of Hamiltons proposed Constitution and which principles were stated during the conventions deliberations per Madison notes and journal (see work of Farrand pg 619), was given to Madison near the close of the convention for inclusion in Madison record of events for the convention. Hamiltons proposed Constitution was not accepted.
Alexander Hamiltons suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
But it was rejected. Find out why and continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/09/17/constitution-day-17-sep-2020-a-lesson-from-history-is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Nice supposition. Too bad it's at odds with reality.
"In making his ambiguous proposals Jay seems to have been adapting British law to American conditions. British law had used the term "natural born subject," and sometimes "native," to apply to a person born within the royal domain or nation. However, various laws, including the statutes of 25 Edw. III (1350), 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1676), 7 Anne, c. 5 § 3 (1708), 4 Geo. II, c. 21 (1731), and 13 Geo. III, c. 2 (1773), extended the status of "natural born subject" to the children of British parents born abroad and to the children of British fathers and grandfathers. Whether Jay intended to incorporate such supplementary provisions when he replaced the term "natural born subject" with "natural born citizen" has not been determined."
Your selected quote of material from another blog and whose author is engaging in supposition therein in their writing is mistaken when he wrote that ... “Whether Jay intended to incorporate such supplementary provisions when he replaced the term “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen” has not been determined.” Where did that blog author get that from? Thin air. No one ever suggested that the eligibility clause of the new U.S. Constitution should require one to be a “natural born subject”. It is a wild and deliberate supposition by that blog author that Jay just switched the word subject to citizen. English common law is not the source of the Natural Law term “natural born Citizen”. And John Jay did not suggest to Washington to replace the term “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen” as is suggested by that blog author. Jay never used that “natural born subject” term for eligibility in his July 1787 letter to Washington. Jay was suggesting to Washington to replace what Hamilton was circulating and suggesting, “born a Citizen”, to be made much stronger with being a “natural born citizen”. And as you should know, Jay wrote in his letter why he wanted the term “natural born citizen” in the eligibility clause, that is to be a “strong check” against persons with foreign influence on them at birth from ascending to the office of the Presidency and command of our military forces. So we don’t have to suppose as to what Jay said and why. We can just read his letter to Washington of Jul 1787: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg How is allowing a dual-Citizen at birth and attendant foreign influence at birth a “strong check” against foreign influence. How much foreign citizenship acquired at birth is too much foreign influence to you? I say no foreign influence/citizenship gained by birth status is what Jay desired and Washington agreed to and got Hamilton’s word changed for the presidential eligibility clause.
Keep trying to spin things here, but if you were intellectually honest you would admit that there is no way that John Jay and George Washington would ever have wanted allowed Kamala Harris who is a Citizen of Jamaica from birth and owes homage and allegiance to the Queen of Jamaica/England to become President and Commander in Chief of our military ... via the front door or the back door as VP and awaiting the quick demise of Biden, mentally and physically. The USA was a new constitutional republic and the term “natural born Citizen” was chosen from Natural Law and the natural law treatise writings of Emer de Vattel, not British common law: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html ... and ... https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
Also see: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
The supplementary provisions were whether people born outside the geographic confines of England were "natural born" or not.
The base supposition, that people born in-country were natural born, was a clear interpretation of English common law.
If you want to say Vattel's writings on inter-country relations had more sway with the framers than English common law no one should take you seriously.
How is allowing a dual-Citizen at birth and attendant foreign influence...
You have yet to explain why having a parent who hasn't yet completed naturalization at the time of your birth opens you to foreign influence.
Because you can't.
How much foreign citizenship acquired at birth is too much foreign influence to you?
Here's your chance. Suppose I got dual citizenship at birth due to the status of my parents.
Suppose further that I didn't realize this until I was 25.
What foreign influence was I subjected to?
I say no foreign influence/citizenship gained by birth status is what Jay desired...
I know you say that, but you don't back it up with anything. On the other hand we have centuries of English common law saying you're likely wrong.
...if you were intellectually honest you would admit that there is no way that John Jay and George Washington would ever have wanted allowed Kamala Harris who is a Citizen of Jamaica from birth and owes homage and allegiance to the Queen of Jamaica/England to become President and Commander in Chief of our military...
If we were discussing what John Jay wanted your point might be relevant but no one can know. What we're talking about is the Constitution as drafted and amended and outside the fringes there really isn't any controversy.
This discussion of what is a “natural born citizen” is a waste of effort and breath. The question is moot since the election and administration of President Hussein Obama.
Thank you sir! I had a great birthday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.