Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

[Holos]

The loons are just looning, nothing more.

My question did not refer to the nature of this assembly. My question was referring to the purpose of the here concerned assembly as being far from its nature.

Read the debates in the 1st Congress when discussing the Nationality Act of 1790. They go on in detail about loyalty, allegiance, oaths, etc that help give you a window into their concerns.

Could you share with me an online readable reference?

 

[Searcher44]

The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens” was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,” as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.

Odd, considering the fact that so many of those who helped craft the “natural born citizen” clause were themselves born in foreign lands: Alexander Hamilton in the West Indies; James Wilson in Scotland; Robert Morris in England; and the four delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 who hailed from Ireland, William Paterson, James McHenry, Pierce Butler and Thomas Fitzsimons.

No worries. Before they finished their business the drafters exempted themselves, and most of their generation from the requirement they felt so crucial.


Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

8 of the first 9 presidents were not born in the United States.

Martin Van Buren was the first president born in the "United States"

Good thing they wrote in that grandfather clause, you would have had teenage Presidents elected for at least....22yrs.?

 

[Desperado]

The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens” was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,” as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.

Odd, considering the fact that so many of those who helped craft the “natural born citizen” clause were themselves born in foreign lands: Alexander Hamilton in the West Indies; James Wilson in Scotland; Robert Morris in England; and the four delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 who hailed from Ireland, William Paterson, James McHenry, Pierce Butler and Thomas Fitzsimons.

No worries. Before they finished their business the drafters exempted themselves, and most of their generation from the requirement they felt so crucial.


Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

8 of the first 9 presidents were not born in the United States.

Martin Van Buren was the first president born in the "United States"

Seriously why is that so strange? If we are talking about the "United States" which was not around till 1776. So it would take awhile for a natural born citizen to become president.

 

[Skylar]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States about "natural born citizenship", and much less does the Declaration of Indepence have anything to do with that, but just to the contrary, it would defend immigrants to become protected from "natural born" tyranny and false forced obligation.

Senators need a minimum of 9 years as citizens to exercise their function, AND CANNOT be inhabitants of the state they represent. One of the senate's function is to choose the President. There is no requirement for the President, except for being chosen by the senate.

I think you may have misunderstood them.

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.

The wording is a little alliterative, but they're using a double negative. No person who is not, and the like.

If your interpretation were correct, then anyone over 30 couldn't be a senator. As they use the same 'not have attained the age of third Years' language with the age requirement that they did with 'who shall not be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

And obviously, that's not the case.

You are right about my mistake.

I would like, however, to use this opportunity to emphasize how interpretation does not pertain only to the grammar within a given context but also to its syntax, which is what I believe to be largely absent from general analysis of the Constitution (or any other form of literature or historical documentation).

How, for instance, would the quoted paragragh (and the entire rest of Article I) assist us in understanding what "natural born Citizen" or "Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution" means? Perhaps we do have to look further than the Constitution itself, but perhaps not. There are few documents or people as authorative as the Constitution itself when defending natural citizens of the United States, after all.

Natural born citizen is thoroughly vague. But less so in historical context. The founders were pretty clear that citizens were analogous to subjects as it relates to birth and allegiance. And British Common law (the legal tradition the founders were most familiar with) goes on extensively about 'natural born subjects'.

Who were those born in the King's allegiance, or more plainly, those born under the King's law. Place of birth established natural born status in British Common Law, even if both parents were aliens.

With the founders demonstrating a profound concern over allegiance in their discussions of naturalization when debating the Naturalization Act of 1790. Its dry reading....but informative.

 

[Skylar]

The loons are just looning, nothing more.

My question did not refer to the nature of this assembly. My question was referring to the purpose of the here concerned assembly as being far from its nature.

Read the debates in the 1st Congress when discussing the Nationality Act of 1790. They go on in detail about loyalty, allegiance, oaths, etc that help give you a window into their concerns.

Could you share with me an online readable reference?

Annals of Congress Links: U.S. Congressional Documents

 

[Holos]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States about "natural born citizenship", and much less does the Declaration of Indepence have anything to do with that, but just to the contrary, it would defend immigrants to become protected from "natural born" tyranny and false forced obligation.

Senators need a minimum of 9 years as citizens to exercise their function, AND CANNOT be inhabitants of the state they represent. One of the senate's function is to choose the President. There is no requirement for the President, except for being chosen by the senate.

I think you may have misunderstood them.

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.

The wording is a little alliterative, but they're using a double negative. No person who is not, and the like.

If your interpretation were correct, then anyone over 30 couldn't be a senator. As they use the same 'not have attained the age of third Years' language with the age requirement that they did with 'who shall not be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

And obviously, that's not the case.

You are right about my mistake.

I would like, however, to use this opportunity to emphasize how interpretation does not pertain only to the grammar within a given context but also to its syntax, which is what I believe to be largely absent from general analysis of the Constitution (or any other form of literature or historical documentation).

How, for instance, would the quoted paragragh (and the entire rest of Article I) assist us in understanding what "natural born Citizen" or "Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution" means? Perhaps we do have to look further than the Constitution itself, but perhaps not. There are few documents or people as authorative as the Constitution itself when defending natural citizens of the United States, after all.

Natural born citizen is thoroughly vague. But less so in historical context. The founders were pretty clear that citizens were analogous to subjects as it relates to birth and allegiance. And British Common law (the legal tradition the founders were most familiar with) goes on extensively about 'natural born subjects'.

Who were those born in the King's allegiance, or more plainly, those born under the King's law. Place of birth established natural born status in British Common Law, even if both parents were aliens.

With the founders demonstrating a profound concern over allegiance in their discussions of naturalization when debating the Naturalization Act of 1790. Its dry reading....but informative.

A reading reference to the original debate would be appreciated.

The founders were evading "Common British Law". The lengthy and gradual foundation was due exactly to their greater familiarity with the British law, which bothered them to the extent of desperate rebellion.

Of course then, it is not any British common law that we have to observe to determine what the founders meant, but their own originating documents.

 

[Skylar]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States about "natural born citizenship", and much less does the Declaration of Indepence have anything to do with that, but just to the contrary, it would defend immigrants to become protected from "natural born" tyranny and false forced obligation.

Senators need a minimum of 9 years as citizens to exercise their function, AND CANNOT be inhabitants of the state they represent. One of the senate's function is to choose the President. There is no requirement for the President, except for being chosen by the senate.

I think you may have misunderstood them.

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.

The wording is a little alliterative, but they're using a double negative. No person who is not, and the like.

If your interpretation were correct, then anyone over 30 couldn't be a senator. As they use the same 'not have attained the age of third Years' language with the age requirement that they did with 'who shall not be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

And obviously, that's not the case.

You are right about my mistake.

I would like, however, to use this opportunity to emphasize how interpretation does not pertain only to the grammar within a given context but also to its syntax, which is what I believe to be largely absent from general analysis of the Constitution (or any other form of literature or historical documentation).

How, for instance, would the quoted paragragh (and the entire rest of Article I) assist us in understanding what "natural born Citizen" or "Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution" means? Perhaps we do have to look further than the Constitution itself, but perhaps not. There are few documents or people as authorative as the Constitution itself when defending natural citizens of the United States, after all.

Natural born citizen is thoroughly vague. But less so in historical context. The founders were pretty clear that citizens were analogous to subjects as it relates to birth and allegiance. And British Common law (the legal tradition the founders were most familiar with) goes on extensively about 'natural born subjects'.

Who were those born in the King's allegiance, or more plainly, those born under the King's law. Place of birth established natural born status in British Common Law, even if both parents were aliens.

With the founders demonstrating a profound concern over allegiance in their discussions of naturalization when debating the Naturalization Act of 1790. Its dry reading....but informative.

A reading reference to the original debate would be appreciated.

The founders were evading "Common British Law". The lengthy and gradual foundation was due exactly to their greater familiarity with the British law, which bothered them to the extent of desperate rebellion.

I disagree. The based their system overwhelmingly on the British system. They rejected how they were being treated by the British. Not the basis of law. And the basis of law they were most familiar with was the British system.

"Natural Born' was a specific legal term that existed only within the British Common Law of their age. It would later be adopted by Vattel's Law of Nations and others, but not until long after the Constitution had already been written and ratified.

The USSC has cited British Common law extensively on this very topic.

Of course then, it is not any British common law that we have to observe to determine what the founders meant, but their own originating documents.

There is no 'originating documents' regarding the meaning of natural born. They lifted the term whole from British Common law.

 

[Holos]

The loons are just looning, nothing more.

My question did not refer to the nature of this assembly. My question was referring to the purpose of the here concerned assembly as being far from its nature.

Read the debates in the 1st Congress when discussing the Nationality Act of 1790. They go on in detail about loyalty, allegiance, oaths, etc that help give you a window into their concerns.

Could you share with me an online readable reference?

Annals of Congress Links: U.S. Congressional Documents

These documents are actually very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Skylar]

The loons are just looning, nothing more.

My question did not refer to the nature of this assembly. My question was referring to the purpose of the here concerned assembly as being far from its nature.

Read the debates in the 1st Congress when discussing the Nationality Act of 1790. They go on in detail about loyalty, allegiance, oaths, etc that help give you a window into their concerns.

Could you share with me an online readable reference?

Annals of Congress Links: U.S. Congressional Documents

These documents are actually very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

I don't know the exact page number, but I believe its the first session of the first congress where this is debate. Just flip through the pages and keep an eye on the headings. When it says 'naturalization', that's the debate.

 

[Holos]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States about "natural born citizenship", and much less does the Declaration of Indepence have anything to do with that, but just to the contrary, it would defend immigrants to become protected from "natural born" tyranny and false forced obligation.

Senators need a minimum of 9 years as citizens to exercise their function, AND CANNOT be inhabitants of the state they represent. One of the senate's function is to choose the President. There is no requirement for the President, except for being chosen by the senate.

I think you may have misunderstood them.

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.

The wording is a little alliterative, but they're using a double negative. No person who is not, and the like.

If your interpretation were correct, then anyone over 30 couldn't be a senator. As they use the same 'not have attained the age of third Years' language with the age requirement that they did with 'who shall not be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

And obviously, that's not the case.

You are right about my mistake.

I would like, however, to use this opportunity to emphasize how interpretation does not pertain only to the grammar within a given context but also to its syntax, which is what I believe to be largely absent from general analysis of the Constitution (or any other form of literature or historical documentation).

How, for instance, would the quoted paragragh (and the entire rest of Article I) assist us in understanding what "natural born Citizen" or "Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution" means? Perhaps we do have to look further than the Constitution itself, but perhaps not. There are few documents or people as authorative as the Constitution itself when defending natural citizens of the United States, after all.

Natural born citizen is thoroughly vague. But less so in historical context. The founders were pretty clear that citizens were analogous to subjects as it relates to birth and allegiance. And British Common law (the legal tradition the founders were most familiar with) goes on extensively about 'natural born subjects'.

Who were those born in the King's allegiance, or more plainly, those born under the King's law. Place of birth established natural born status in British Common Law, even if both parents were aliens.

With the founders demonstrating a profound concern over allegiance in their discussions of naturalization when debating the Naturalization Act of 1790. Its dry reading....but informative.

A reading reference to the original debate would be appreciated.

The founders were evading "Common British Law". The lengthy and gradual foundation was due exactly to their greater familiarity with the British law, which bothered them to the extent of desperate rebellion.

I disagree. The based their system overwhelmingly on the British system. They rejected how they were being treated by the British. Not the basis of law. And the basis of law they were most familiar with was the British system.

"Natural Born' was a specific legal term that existed only within the British Common Law of their age. It would later be adopted by Vattel's Law of Nations and others, but not until long after the Constitution had already been written and ratified.

The USSC has cited British Common law extensively on this very topic.

Of course then, it is not any British common law that we have to observe to determine what the founders meant, but their own originating documents.

There is no 'originating documents' regarding the meaning of natural born. They lifted the term whole from British Common law.

I understand and your knowledge to me is now made clearer by the sharing of your references. Thank you.

I did not mean originating documents regarding the meaning of natural born, although that would be ideal. I just meant the actual caused discussions between the founders, which you have already refered me to.

I believe I cannot continue this debate from where I stand now. I need to study these works before I have any individuated opinion. I was not aware of the varied procedence of the expression in question and now I have a clearer direction to follow to arrive at my position.

Thank you.

 

[Holos]

My question did not refer to the nature of this assembly. My question was referring to the purpose of the here concerned assembly as being far from its nature.

Read the debates in the 1st Congress when discussing the Nationality Act of 1790. They go on in detail about loyalty, allegiance, oaths, etc that help give you a window into their concerns.

Could you share with me an online readable reference?

Annals of Congress Links: U.S. Congressional Documents

These documents are actually very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

I don't know the exact page number, but I believe its the first session of the first congress where this is debate. Just flip through the pages and keep an eye on the headings. When it says 'naturalization', that's the debate.

I believe I found the reference.
However, I believe debate on naturality and "rule for naturalization" (as it is in the documents) are two very distinct things.

Anyhow, I cannot continue the debate before more study on my part. Thank you for the homework.

 

[Skylar]

Read the debates in the 1st Congress when discussing the Nationality Act of 1790. They go on in detail about loyalty, allegiance, oaths, etc that help give you a window into their concerns.

Could you share with me an online readable reference?

Annals of Congress Links: U.S. Congressional Documents

These documents are actually very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

I don't know the exact page number, but I believe its the first session of the first congress where this is debate. Just flip through the pages and keep an eye on the headings. When it says 'naturalization', that's the debate.

I believe I found the reference.
However, I believe debate on naturality and "rule for naturalization" (as it is in the documents) are two very distinct things.

Anyhow, I cannot continue the debate before more study on my part. Thank you for the homework.

I'm not offering the Naturalization Act of 1790 as a source on natural born. I'm offering it as a source on the founders deep concern with allegiance. With allegiance being the answer to your question on why they wanted a natural born citizen.