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.

Google,,, batr.org TISA

On 6/26/2014 9:45 AM, wrote:
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.


You find bits and pieces in the Federalist Papers, not a pure definition.

BREAKING! There may be enough...... www.libertypost.org

On 06/26/2014 02:49 PM, Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/26/2014 9:45 AM, wrote:


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.


You find bits and pieces in the Federalist Papers, not a pure definition.

The Constitution is intentionally vague. This forces people to use their
own brains rather than pretending to know what words meant 220 years ago.

On 6/27/2014 8:41 AM, dave wrote:
On 06/26/2014 02:49 PM, Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/26/2014 9:45 AM, wrote:


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.


You find bits and pieces in the Federalist Papers, not a pure definition.

The Constitution is intentionally vague.

To promote checks and balances, yes.

This forces people to use their
own brains rather than pretending to know what words meant 220 years ago.

The core meaning is critical - read any SCOTUS ruling and stop being cute.

On 06/28/2014 12:48 PM, Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/27/2014 8:41 AM, dave wrote:


The Constitution is intentionally vague.

To promote checks and balances, yes.

This forces people to use their
own brains rather than pretending to know what words meant 220 years ago.

The core meaning is critical - read any SCOTUS ruling and stop being cute.

I don't believe in Marbury v Madison. The current SCOTUS is the most
corrupt and dangerous entity in history. The People will burn that big
marble piggy bank to the muddy ground.

On 6/30/2014 9:10 AM, dave wrote:
On 06/28/2014 12:48 PM, Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/27/2014 8:41 AM, dave wrote:


The Constitution is intentionally vague.

To promote checks and balances, yes.

This forces people to use their
own brains rather than pretending to know what words meant 220 years
ago.

The core meaning is critical - read any SCOTUS ruling and stop being
cute.

I don't believe in Marbury v Madison. The current SCOTUS is the most
corrupt and dangerous entity in history. The People will burn that big
marble piggy bank to the muddy ground.

That sounds like a physical threat to the SCOTUS, is that what you intended?

On Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:49:33 PM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
You find bits and pieces in the Federalist Papers, not a pure
definition.
Show me. I did not see it at all in the quote you provided.

www.clarionledger.com Tea Party Leader Mark Mayfield. Over there at. www.libertypost.org Twitter and True The Vote, couple of articles.