Just thinking out loud.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
Thanks for the reply.
That's very interesting, indeed, and I appreciate the sourcing, etc.
However, I think I disagree on one point:
There is a problem here, because although the authors of the amendment may well have 'understood' (meaning that they ascribed a certain defined meaning to it) the term or expression (although i do not know if "natural-born citizen" was an existing term at the time, like "arms" was in 1776), they are not alive today.
This is why the Supreme Court exists: to interpret and further define constitutional issues if and when they arise.
So, if Bingham et al intended for this to be the definition: "all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens" then it would seem the definition needs to be reinforced by the SC, because those words themselves are NOT in the constitution or the law (amendment).
The "arms" question to. Does the right to bear arms include any and all implementation usable for either defense or attack? Does the constitution guarantee a citizen's right to develop and posses nuclear weaponry, for example?
I'm asking this because HOW these terms are understood and implemented in the current and future times would seemingly need further definition. (I'm absolutely pro-2nd by the way, der. I'm just querying how to approach and understand the issues involved).
I can accept that Bingham et al intended "natural born citizen" to mean (as you have quoted above), BUT, it appears that has not been sufficiently defined in the modern era, and there is a need for the SC to adjudicate, in order to make it clear.
I suppose the issue has never really been challenged in terms of the modern era. It's noteworthy that if such a definition was upheld, then Obama would be ineligible regardless of whether his birth certificate was legit or not, because his father was Kenyan.
In any case, thanks for the excellent dig.
Essentially, in addition to saying “NO SPLIT ALLEGIANCES”, Bingham also stated, “NATURALIZED = ADOPTED”; Bingham never asserted “NATURALIZED = NATURAL-BORN.”
The term NATURAL-BORN could not be made more simple than it already was, and Congress fully understood the differences between the words Bingham utilized as he utilized them.
Furthermore, the evils of TYRANNY wasn’t an alien concept for the founders; they didn’t need to define ARMS any more than the authors of the 14th needed to define differences between the terms NATURAL-BORN and ADOPTED.
I mean, I would dare believe, “We the People” should be allowed to own any weapon a government is allowed to wield, due to the fact the government consists of (or SHOULD consist of) “We the People”, and I would dare believe the founders would agree with that, wholeheartedly.
In other words, ARMS are ARMS — whether the arms exist as/on guns, cannons, navy vessels, tanks, flamethrowers, rockets, jets, subs, spacecrafts, space lasers, para-gliders, chemical weapons, planet destroyers, etc. — any freedom-loving American should have the capacity to fortify their existence via any form of mutually assured destruction.
Furthermore, as crazy as the “mutually assured destruction” assertion may be, even with NUKES in the mix, I 100% believe America’s founders would feel the same way, because they knew crazy tyrants could only be matched with crazy offenses/defenses, so they knew how placing defined limits on what ARMS may or may not be could only serve as an act of infringement, an alienation of rights, a crime against any free law-abiding American.
I find myself to be quite in agreement with your points.
Regarding the issue of 'natural born citizen', this thread has been quite an education process for me.