THE
CONSTITUTION, VATTEL, AND "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"
By
Publius Huldah
NewsWithViews.com
We have
been visited recently with several very silly articles which
assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within
the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789),
and hence is qualified to be President:
Bret
Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress can define (and presumably
redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means
of law.
Chet
Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning
of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference
to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition
of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.
Human
Events claims that anyone born within The United States is
a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.
Jake
Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from
1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements
imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House,
Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject”
to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born
citizen”:
“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…”
[emphasis mine]
“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.” [emphasis mine]
But
“subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a
war so that we could be transformed from “subjects
of the British Crown” to Citizens
of a Republic!
The
four writers don’t know what they are talking about. But I will
tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.