View Single Post
  #58   Report Post  
Old June 26th 14, 04:45 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
[email protected][_2_] jfeng@my-deja.com[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2007
Posts: 153
Default What goes around...

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 8:59:39 AM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura...citizen_clause



Alexander Hamilton, a Convention delegate from New York, wrote in
Federalist No. 68 about the care that must be taken in selecting
the president: "Nothing was more to be desired than that every
practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and
corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government
might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from
more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers
to gain an improper ascendant in our councils."[5

http://www.redstate.com/diary/ironch...ynch-v-clarke/

A quote from James Madison, popularly acknowledged as the
ï¿ 1/2 authorï¿ 1/2 of the Constitution, provides a clue as to what our
Founders meant. In one of his papers, dated the 22 May, 1789, he
wrote the following (emphasis mine):

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; it will therefore be
unnecessary to investigate any other.


Maybe it is the 18th century Colonial English, but the quote from the Federalist Papers that you attribute to Alexander Hamilton seems like a justification for requiring natural-born citizenship. I do not see a definition of being a "natura- born citizen" in this quote.

The quote from James Madison is interesting, but he seems to be presenting it as his opinion, it covers some simple and uncontroversial situations, and he does not seem to be claiming the same authority to interpret the constitutions as John Marshall did in Marbury versus Madison. It does not appear to be a formal and legal definition that gives both the necessary requirements and describes any and all disqualifying conditions.

I still think the Rock Rat was wrong when he asserted that the definition could be found in the Constitution, and he was just bloviating when he claimed that it was in the Federalist Papers.