seedload wrote:Diogenes wrote:
It's a thing called "Original Intent." It is a bedrock principle of Conservative Philosophy. The intended purpose of Article II is to prevent a President of divided allegiance. Constitutional provisions remain in effect till repealed or amended, no matter how old they are.
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.
- James Madison
Shall we begin the dueling "intent" wars or just agree that, in this case, the intent is not clear.
My take is that "natural born" is just a distinction between citizen at birth and naturalized citizen.
regards
I've covered this before. Not sure if it was with you or someone else, but i'll reiterate a few points.
The discussion this quote comes from is a dispute regarding a man that was born in South Carolina to British Parents (Who died prior to Independence) and was sent to England as a child, where he remained for many years. Only returning some short time before running for a house seat.
Madison was not arguing that this man be seated as President, but rather as a representative of the State of South Carolina. Madison further argues that the man's family and estate are all in South Carolina, making him part of that community.
In the 1700s, being born IN a place was essentially the same thing as being part of that community. This business of transients giving birth in America was relatively rare in those days. Even so, had Mr. Smith of South Carolina (the gentlemen whom the quote is about) had a Spanish Father, Madison would not have been able to rescue him with his proffered opinion. By the same token, were he running for President, this tactic also would have failed.
Even so, Madison concedes that criterion of Allegiance "derives its force sometimes from place, and
sometimes from parentage." When would Allegiance be derived from Parentage?
When your parents are slaves or Indians. Apparently "Place" had no bearing on citizenship for these. Madison is obviously wrong when it came to these.
Madison expresses one opinion in a minor dispute regarding a member of the House. Even so, the Constitution was approved by ALL of the Delegates and then by 3/4ths of the State Legislatures. It is but one opinion of many, which is self evidently wrong when applied to others born here, and misapplied regarding Article II at that.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
