Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before you lay into Puzo, this is not about him,.....
claud, you are putting apuzzo forth as an expert on the constitution. so, as with any profession, it begs the question......... exactly what expertise has he had in the field?
I find it amazing how anyone can rely on this short missive from John Jay to George Washington as being the defining source for the meaning of natural born citizen.
New-York, 25th July, 1787.
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay.
There is no reference to Vattel and only the assumption that because John Jay studied the writings of Emmerich de Vattel I cannot find any literature or Supreme Court decision authored by Jay that would indicate that this was his sole source of legal interpretation if it was a source at all. Every birther site that I have been to, and there have been a lot of them, I can find nothing more than supposition regarding Vattel's influence on Jay's legal thinking.
As you know, Obama sponsored a Resolution declaring McCain a natural born citizen because he was born in the Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens, serving in the military.
Quote:
The McCain campaign has consulted two leading jurists, Theodore Olsen and Laurence Tribe, on the constitutional issues. Olsen and Tribe were on opposite sides of the 2000 Bush vs Gore Supreme Court case, but they see eye to eye on the question of McCain's eligibility for the presidency. They argue that McCain is a natural born citizen because the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936, he was born on a U.S. military base, and both of his parents were U.S. citizens. The Olsen-Tribe opinion is available here. Sarah Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University, who has made a detailed study of the natural born issue, says the question is not as simple as Olsen and Tribe make out. While she believes that McCain would likely win a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she says the matter can only be fully resolved by a constitutional amendment or a decision of the Supreme Court.
McCain's birth on August 29, 1936, in what was then the Panama Canal Zone was announced in the English language Panamanian American, available here. The McCain campaign has declined to publicly release his birth certificate, but a senior campaign official showed me a copy. Contrary to some Internet rumors that McCain was born outside the Canal Zone, in Colon, the document records his birth in the Coco Solo "family hospital."
Quote:
The Pinocchio Test
It seems common sense that a child born to U.S. citizens on a U.S. military base while his father was on active military service should be eligible for the presidency. But the constitution is ambiguous about the precise meaning of "natural-born citizen." According to Professor Duggin, the "McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the constitution."
interesting opinion by sarah duggin. but the reason i listed tribe and olsen is for these quotes from their memo:
"these sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance."
and
"we find it inconceivable that senator obama would have been ineligible for the presidency had he been born two years earlier."
it's obvious that sarah duggin read the tribe/olsen memo. did she also have issue with these parts?
Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. He was also the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that upon reading the proposed language put forward by Hamilton that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the President should be a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the Presidency be open only to a “natural born Citizen”, not just simply a “born Citizen” as Hamilton had proposed. See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington dated 25 Jul 1787 at this link.
The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen what Hamilton had proposed for Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.
John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. ”
This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. It is historically in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential qualification requirements appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier on June 18, 1787 – which required one only be “born a Citizen of the United States”. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the next draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
As the certificate says he was born in Hawaii, the question becomes is Hawaii "legally" a part of the United States? as per... U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510) to which the president of the United States apologizes for the wrongful over throw of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
I wanted to go into this more but I am not feeling all that well.... do Any of you have the same or similar view points?
As the certificate says he was born in Hawaii, the question becomes is Hawaii "legally" a part of the United States? as per... U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510) to which the president of the United States apologizes for the wrongful over throw of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
I wanted to go into this more but I am not feeling all that well.... do Any of you have the same or similar view points?
How would an apology for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 nullify Hawaiian statehood? The overthrow was not an annexation -- the Republican of Hawaii followed the Kingdom, and Hawaii was not annexed until 1898. And Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. 103-150 does not apologize for either the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii nor for granting statehood to the Territory opf Hawaii.
Guess what? The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolutionary War were 'illegal', too. Are you suggesting that the 13 original states were also not 'legally' states?
Perhaps you did not notice that the very Law 103-150 you cite affirms that Hawaii is -- and has been since August 21, 1959 -- a state of the United States.
As the certificate says he was born in Hawaii, the question becomes is Hawaii "legally" a part of the United States?
Ooooooooh..... tough one. Tough one.
Let's go to the preamble of their Constitution:
Quote:
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
PREAMBLE
We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono."
We reserve the right to control our destiny, to nurture the integrity of our people and culture, and to preserve the quality of life that we desire.
We reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding and compassionate heart toward all the peoples of the earth, do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii. [Am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ADOPTED
The Constitution of the United States of America is adopted on behalf of the people of the State of Hawaii.
Seriously, do you guys need to continually dig up fringe group artifacts because you really have nothing germane to reality to discuss?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Hawaii a state?
