Had you actually read my article, you would know that this is not a question that “the Founders ‘may have meant’.” SCOTUS has clearly affirmed that the definition of “natural born citizen” was well established in Common Law at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution so clearly it is not an “obscure argumentation” as you say…
Had you actually read my article, you would know that this is not a question that “the Founders ‘may have meant’.” SCOTUS has clearly affirmed that the definition of “natural born citizen” was well established in Common Law at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution so clearly it is not an “obscure argumentation” as you say. As I stated in my article, the definition was affirmed by SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett.
Also, you are incorrect with your claim that there have been “Eight US Presidents who have been elected and served, despite 1 of their parents not being American born.” There was some controversy surrounding Chester Arthur but we know for sure that Barry violated this qualification as his father was a Kenyan citizen. Your argument that “it has been considered acceptable to simply be born on US soil in order to qualify” is quite troubling.
This attitude is one of the main reasons our Constitutional Republic has been completely destroyed. If the U.S. Constitution is ever to be amended, Article V lays out the ways to do it. When we ignore Article V and just amend the U.S. Constitution by practice or opinion, then the U.S. Constitution means nothing, and we become a lawless nation.
You are referencing a SCOTUS decision from **1875** ....and then ignoring the fact that multiple Presidents have in fact been elected, and served, including as recently as the two terms of President Obama.
Even a basic Wikipedia search would confirm to you that: "Of the 45 individuals who became president, there have been eight that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil."
You are arguing that this is unconstitutional, which is an interesting point of discussion in the academic sense, but in practicality this is irrelevant ...because no serious person is suggesting that Obama and the others have their Presidential status retrospectively revoked (not even sure how that could work) to start implementing a new interpretation of the "natural born citizen" clause.
Again, interesting point of discussion, thank you for taking the time to write about it.
But of course, this is not going to stop either Hayley or Vivek from being able to run, in the same way it did not stop Obama.
In the law, we have this little Latin phrase known as stare decisis, which means that the courts rely on their own precedent. It doesn’t matter that the case was decided in 1875. It’s still precedent. Personally, I would not rely on Wikipedia for anything. The case they are relying on for their information on the matter is from a county court in New York—hardly stare decisis material for SCOTUS.
Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice. Back in the ’80s, I had to endure listening to those professors all through law school as they told us that the U.S. Constitution is a “living constitution” that changes with the whims of society. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.
You also claim that “no serious person” is arguing for “a new interpretation” of natural born citizen. There are plenty of legal scholars making this argument, and it is not a “new interpretation” as you erroneously claim. It is the original interpretation.
As far as Barry goes, he is the lawless one and having his “Presidential status retrospectively revoked” is the least that should happen. He was the one who claimed that he could legislate with his pen and phone. In constitutional circles, we refer to that as a blatant violation of the Separation of Powers, but by your argument, it’s legally valid since no one objected to it, and don’t even get me started on his assassination of U.S. citizens. Remember, he was the one who said that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the country. From what I’m hearing from you, he’s doing a pretty good job.
Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said that the Framers gave us a Republic, if we can keep it, but that’s the part that everybody remembers. He also didn’t think we could keep it – “I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that it is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” (emphasis added) Benjamin Franklin, Speech in the Constitutional Convention, at the Conclusion of its Deliberations, Delivered September 17, 1787.
We’ve all bought into the political corruption that has completely destroyed our Constitutional Republic just as Franklin predicted as we have turned it into a democratic monstrosity that rules from the top-down instead of a Constitutional Republic that rules from the bottom-up. Again, the tragedy is that so many people like yourself are trying to defend the corruption without even realizing it.
I appreciate your point of view, I'm simply saying — correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 — that people on the right always do this ...disappear down rabbit holes and take stances that can be as right as they want, they simply will not win.
If you cannot win, you cannot make changes. The left understands this. The right do not. Even when the right do win, they are too polite (or compromised) to actual do anything about the decades of corruption and decline.
To this point:
"Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice"
On the contrary. This is not my position.
I would like to have a constitutionalist Paul / Massey style candidate, but we do not have one.
So I am simply unsure what is the value of debating around in circles about these kinds of procedural matters ...when the ball is in play. I'm sure that even is you disagree with me, you can understand what I'm saying. There is little value in shouting from outside the tent that the tent is built incorrectly. You have to get inside the tent, and then start to dismantle the parts that are out of order, and put them back properly. That is my view.
Out of interest, who would you vote for, if you were voting in Iowa today?
I’m glad to hear that your stated position is not the same as the liberal law professors when I attended law school, but your analogy about “the tent” still seems to support the status quo. Yes, I am a “purist” and will not change. I had a law professor scream in face once that “you can’t change the system without working within the system.” My response to her was simply, “well, it’s a good thing George Washington didn’t feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.”
When taking on the status quo, Christ pointed out as well that it is impossible to “pour new wine into old bottles.” Even with a Paul/Massey ticket (and for the record, Massey isn’t someone I would consider to be a constitutional purist), it is still impossible to change the system by working within it. The status quo seeks self-preservation above all else.
When you get “inside the tent” you become part of the tent. The only way to “dismantle the parts” of the status quo in order to be able to “put them back properly” is to listen to what the Framers had to say in this regard – from the Declaration of Independence to The Federalist Papers and elsewhere. When “the representatives of the people betray their constituents,” then we must “exert” what Hamilton called “the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ¶6. We have spent way too much time listening to crooks, thieves, and traitors instead of listening to the Framers.
As far as your last question, I don’t and never have participated in the unconstitutional presidential elections that we now operate under. As I noted in a prior article, we become so vested in the party and the personality that we completely lose our allegiance to our U.S. Constitution in a popularity contest between personalities spouting off the best one-liners.
Yet, under our Constitution, the President was never meant to be elected by popular vote. When we participate in the current, corrupt form of presidential elections, we are merely perpetuating a perverted procedure of constitutional government to our own detriment – a government that the consolidators have sold to us under the deceptive allure of democratic machinations in order to subvert and undermine our great Republic.
A “small number” of electors were supposed to be “chosen by the people for the special purpose” of selecting the US President. These delegates were to be “chosen in each State, [and were] to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen” without any influence from the tyrannical 51% majority of popular elections. Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 68, ¶4. The idea was to keep the power in the hands of the individual states and not in the hands of a small group of power-hungry maniacs who run the two-party/Uniparty American political system.
I appreciate all that, but what are you actually suggesting then?
"My response to her was simply, “well, it’s a good thing George Washington didn’t feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.”...
I mean... are you hoping for armed revolution? You're refusing to vote until the next revolutionary war takes place, and another George Washington can come along off the back end of that war?
I get your point about how things *should* be, but I'm unclear on what the next steps are from your position.
It sounds like you've decided you don't like the game play, so you're gonna take your ball and go home. Which is your right. But another revolutionary war is not happening anytime soon, so I don't really understand the thinking of just sitting on the sidelines shouting into the middle distance about how everyone is doing it wrong. At some point, someone with this view has to actually get up and go do something.
Personally, I think the Founders would not have just carped from the sidelines in our situation. I think they would be out there making forceful arguments, debating, and trying to win people over to their view to build a consensus for their plans. Just my two cents.
I’m sure you’re aware that in some scholarly circles, Samuel Adams is considered the Father of the Revolution. Adams was given that title because he spent his time writing and getting his writings out to the public. Imagine that, if you will, one of the Founders who just “carped from the sidelines” with his writings.
Personally, I’ve spent over 15 years on social media and, more recently, Substack, where I’ve written hundreds of articles under the pen name Madame Publius using The Federalist Papers (i.e., the words of the Father and Chief Architect of our Constitution -- James Madison -- along with Hamilton and Jay) to try and educate people about our Constitution by applying Madison’s (et al) own words to current events in order to show how we’ve destroyed our Constitution by amending it through practice and opinion and are now only giving it lip service. I believe this approach is much more effective than playing by the Uniparty’s rules, thinking that we can beat them at their own game. What is the definition of insanity again? Besides, "the pen is mightier than the sword."
I also haven’t just “carped from the sidelines.” I have argued for more solutions than just exercising our Original Right of Self-defense that Hamilton talks about. More particularly, I’ve argued for the states to take back their original constitutional powers from the political parties. After all, Madison said that the Republican form of government created under our Constitution would give the power to the states to be a “double security” against federal/national encroachment.
They can reestablish this “double security” simply and without any armed conflict. The states just need to start following the constitutional process of electing the President by appointing Electors and repealing any laws that directs them to be a “rubber stamp” for the 51% majority. Next, they need to stop following the 17th Amendment, as it is patently unconstitutional since it destroyed the “Republican form of government” guaranteed in our Constitution under Article IV.
With the states appointing Senators and Electors, they would no longer be beholden to the Uniparty but to their individual states just like our Founders created it.
I just read all of your comments and they inspired me to comment.
I am not as well versed in the subject matters you have been discussing but I did want to add my thoughts.
When the rule’s of the game are changed, one is not playing the same game. The one’s who change said rules always seem to have the upper hand while the viewers of the game never notice the rules change over time which unfortunately leads to their demise.
Fully understanding the original rules protects one from being deceived into playing or becoming part of the fraudulent game.
I may be way off base, but that is my simplistic take away on your discussion which I have found very interesting and should make one ponder.
As a side note. Hillsdale College has some free course’s on these subjects which I have found interesting and informative.
Thank you for your comment. As I noted in my posts, I’ve spent many years trying to expose the deception and fraud by urging my readers to read, study and ponder The Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers.
Unfortunately, those who have eyes to see realize that the original “rules” have become so corrupted that we are at the end of our Republic just as Benjamin Franklin predicted. If we are ever going to save it, we must accept the truth that it will never happen in D.C. Electing people to go back and fix D.C. is never going to happen since they are all beholden to the political parties.
The only way to begin the healing is for the states to take back the power from the corrupt political parties and resume their constitutional role as a “double security” against the national government. After that, we need to focus on the “Guarantee Clause” in Article IV of the Constitution to turn our states into Republican forms of government instead of the democracies as they now operate. Everyone sees the problems with the big cities/high population centers that control everything in each individual state but do not realize that it is because they operate as democracies instead of Republics as our Constitution stipulates.
I have more to learn, but it is nice to know where to go and send others so they might see and start to understand and in turn hopefully be able to help steer the counties, states and the country back on course.
May be impossible, but if we don’t work towards doing so it definitely won’t.
Had you actually read my article, you would know that this is not a question that “the Founders ‘may have meant’.” SCOTUS has clearly affirmed that the definition of “natural born citizen” was well established in Common Law at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution so clearly it is not an “obscure argumentation” as you say. As I stated in my article, the definition was affirmed by SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett.
Also, you are incorrect with your claim that there have been “Eight US Presidents who have been elected and served, despite 1 of their parents not being American born.” There was some controversy surrounding Chester Arthur but we know for sure that Barry violated this qualification as his father was a Kenyan citizen. Your argument that “it has been considered acceptable to simply be born on US soil in order to qualify” is quite troubling.
This attitude is one of the main reasons our Constitutional Republic has been completely destroyed. If the U.S. Constitution is ever to be amended, Article V lays out the ways to do it. When we ignore Article V and just amend the U.S. Constitution by practice or opinion, then the U.S. Constitution means nothing, and we become a lawless nation.
Madame, your argumentation is indeed obscure.
You are referencing a SCOTUS decision from **1875** ....and then ignoring the fact that multiple Presidents have in fact been elected, and served, including as recently as the two terms of President Obama.
Even a basic Wikipedia search would confirm to you that: "Of the 45 individuals who became president, there have been eight that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)
You are arguing that this is unconstitutional, which is an interesting point of discussion in the academic sense, but in practicality this is irrelevant ...because no serious person is suggesting that Obama and the others have their Presidential status retrospectively revoked (not even sure how that could work) to start implementing a new interpretation of the "natural born citizen" clause.
Again, interesting point of discussion, thank you for taking the time to write about it.
But of course, this is not going to stop either Hayley or Vivek from being able to run, in the same way it did not stop Obama.
In the law, we have this little Latin phrase known as stare decisis, which means that the courts rely on their own precedent. It doesn’t matter that the case was decided in 1875. It’s still precedent. Personally, I would not rely on Wikipedia for anything. The case they are relying on for their information on the matter is from a county court in New York—hardly stare decisis material for SCOTUS.
Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice. Back in the ’80s, I had to endure listening to those professors all through law school as they told us that the U.S. Constitution is a “living constitution” that changes with the whims of society. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.
You also claim that “no serious person” is arguing for “a new interpretation” of natural born citizen. There are plenty of legal scholars making this argument, and it is not a “new interpretation” as you erroneously claim. It is the original interpretation.
As far as Barry goes, he is the lawless one and having his “Presidential status retrospectively revoked” is the least that should happen. He was the one who claimed that he could legislate with his pen and phone. In constitutional circles, we refer to that as a blatant violation of the Separation of Powers, but by your argument, it’s legally valid since no one objected to it, and don’t even get me started on his assassination of U.S. citizens. Remember, he was the one who said that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the country. From what I’m hearing from you, he’s doing a pretty good job.
Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said that the Framers gave us a Republic, if we can keep it, but that’s the part that everybody remembers. He also didn’t think we could keep it – “I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that it is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” (emphasis added) Benjamin Franklin, Speech in the Constitutional Convention, at the Conclusion of its Deliberations, Delivered September 17, 1787.
We’ve all bought into the political corruption that has completely destroyed our Constitutional Republic just as Franklin predicted as we have turned it into a democratic monstrosity that rules from the top-down instead of a Constitutional Republic that rules from the bottom-up. Again, the tragedy is that so many people like yourself are trying to defend the corruption without even realizing it.
I appreciate your point of view, I'm simply saying — correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 — that people on the right always do this ...disappear down rabbit holes and take stances that can be as right as they want, they simply will not win.
If you cannot win, you cannot make changes. The left understands this. The right do not. Even when the right do win, they are too polite (or compromised) to actual do anything about the decades of corruption and decline.
To this point:
"Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice"
On the contrary. This is not my position.
I would like to have a constitutionalist Paul / Massey style candidate, but we do not have one.
So I am simply unsure what is the value of debating around in circles about these kinds of procedural matters ...when the ball is in play. I'm sure that even is you disagree with me, you can understand what I'm saying. There is little value in shouting from outside the tent that the tent is built incorrectly. You have to get inside the tent, and then start to dismantle the parts that are out of order, and put them back properly. That is my view.
Out of interest, who would you vote for, if you were voting in Iowa today?
I’m glad to hear that your stated position is not the same as the liberal law professors when I attended law school, but your analogy about “the tent” still seems to support the status quo. Yes, I am a “purist” and will not change. I had a law professor scream in face once that “you can’t change the system without working within the system.” My response to her was simply, “well, it’s a good thing George Washington didn’t feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.”
When taking on the status quo, Christ pointed out as well that it is impossible to “pour new wine into old bottles.” Even with a Paul/Massey ticket (and for the record, Massey isn’t someone I would consider to be a constitutional purist), it is still impossible to change the system by working within it. The status quo seeks self-preservation above all else.
When you get “inside the tent” you become part of the tent. The only way to “dismantle the parts” of the status quo in order to be able to “put them back properly” is to listen to what the Framers had to say in this regard – from the Declaration of Independence to The Federalist Papers and elsewhere. When “the representatives of the people betray their constituents,” then we must “exert” what Hamilton called “the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ¶6. We have spent way too much time listening to crooks, thieves, and traitors instead of listening to the Framers.
As far as your last question, I don’t and never have participated in the unconstitutional presidential elections that we now operate under. As I noted in a prior article, we become so vested in the party and the personality that we completely lose our allegiance to our U.S. Constitution in a popularity contest between personalities spouting off the best one-liners.
Yet, under our Constitution, the President was never meant to be elected by popular vote. When we participate in the current, corrupt form of presidential elections, we are merely perpetuating a perverted procedure of constitutional government to our own detriment – a government that the consolidators have sold to us under the deceptive allure of democratic machinations in order to subvert and undermine our great Republic.
A “small number” of electors were supposed to be “chosen by the people for the special purpose” of selecting the US President. These delegates were to be “chosen in each State, [and were] to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen” without any influence from the tyrannical 51% majority of popular elections. Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 68, ¶4. The idea was to keep the power in the hands of the individual states and not in the hands of a small group of power-hungry maniacs who run the two-party/Uniparty American political system.
I appreciate all that, but what are you actually suggesting then?
"My response to her was simply, “well, it’s a good thing George Washington didn’t feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.”...
I mean... are you hoping for armed revolution? You're refusing to vote until the next revolutionary war takes place, and another George Washington can come along off the back end of that war?
I get your point about how things *should* be, but I'm unclear on what the next steps are from your position.
It sounds like you've decided you don't like the game play, so you're gonna take your ball and go home. Which is your right. But another revolutionary war is not happening anytime soon, so I don't really understand the thinking of just sitting on the sidelines shouting into the middle distance about how everyone is doing it wrong. At some point, someone with this view has to actually get up and go do something.
Personally, I think the Founders would not have just carped from the sidelines in our situation. I think they would be out there making forceful arguments, debating, and trying to win people over to their view to build a consensus for their plans. Just my two cents.
I’m sure you’re aware that in some scholarly circles, Samuel Adams is considered the Father of the Revolution. Adams was given that title because he spent his time writing and getting his writings out to the public. Imagine that, if you will, one of the Founders who just “carped from the sidelines” with his writings.
Personally, I’ve spent over 15 years on social media and, more recently, Substack, where I’ve written hundreds of articles under the pen name Madame Publius using The Federalist Papers (i.e., the words of the Father and Chief Architect of our Constitution -- James Madison -- along with Hamilton and Jay) to try and educate people about our Constitution by applying Madison’s (et al) own words to current events in order to show how we’ve destroyed our Constitution by amending it through practice and opinion and are now only giving it lip service. I believe this approach is much more effective than playing by the Uniparty’s rules, thinking that we can beat them at their own game. What is the definition of insanity again? Besides, "the pen is mightier than the sword."
I also haven’t just “carped from the sidelines.” I have argued for more solutions than just exercising our Original Right of Self-defense that Hamilton talks about. More particularly, I’ve argued for the states to take back their original constitutional powers from the political parties. After all, Madison said that the Republican form of government created under our Constitution would give the power to the states to be a “double security” against federal/national encroachment.
They can reestablish this “double security” simply and without any armed conflict. The states just need to start following the constitutional process of electing the President by appointing Electors and repealing any laws that directs them to be a “rubber stamp” for the 51% majority. Next, they need to stop following the 17th Amendment, as it is patently unconstitutional since it destroyed the “Republican form of government” guaranteed in our Constitution under Article IV.
With the states appointing Senators and Electors, they would no longer be beholden to the Uniparty but to their individual states just like our Founders created it.
Madame
I just read all of your comments and they inspired me to comment.
I am not as well versed in the subject matters you have been discussing but I did want to add my thoughts.
When the rule’s of the game are changed, one is not playing the same game. The one’s who change said rules always seem to have the upper hand while the viewers of the game never notice the rules change over time which unfortunately leads to their demise.
Fully understanding the original rules protects one from being deceived into playing or becoming part of the fraudulent game.
I may be way off base, but that is my simplistic take away on your discussion which I have found very interesting and should make one ponder.
As a side note. Hillsdale College has some free course’s on these subjects which I have found interesting and informative.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
John
Thank you for your comment. As I noted in my posts, I’ve spent many years trying to expose the deception and fraud by urging my readers to read, study and ponder The Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers.
Unfortunately, those who have eyes to see realize that the original “rules” have become so corrupted that we are at the end of our Republic just as Benjamin Franklin predicted. If we are ever going to save it, we must accept the truth that it will never happen in D.C. Electing people to go back and fix D.C. is never going to happen since they are all beholden to the political parties.
The only way to begin the healing is for the states to take back the power from the corrupt political parties and resume their constitutional role as a “double security” against the national government. After that, we need to focus on the “Guarantee Clause” in Article IV of the Constitution to turn our states into Republican forms of government instead of the democracies as they now operate. Everyone sees the problems with the big cities/high population centers that control everything in each individual state but do not realize that it is because they operate as democracies instead of Republics as our Constitution stipulates.
I agree with your concerns and conclusion.
I have more to learn, but it is nice to know where to go and send others so they might see and start to understand and in turn hopefully be able to help steer the counties, states and the country back on course.
May be impossible, but if we don’t work towards doing so it definitely won’t.
Thanks again