Natural Born Citizen Clause Still Ignored
(newswithviews.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (15)
sorted by:
You are 100 percent correct.
The True Definition
Pre-Counters
Modern Legal Consensus: Legal consensus, even among scholars and judges, does not have the authority to change the original meaning of the Constitution. The true test of constitutionality lies in adherence to the original text and intent of the framers, not in contemporary consensus.
Judicial Precedent and Practice: Judicial decisions and precedents can be mistaken and do not override the original meaning of the Constitution. Historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, illustrate that the Supreme Court can err and be later corrected. The Constitution’s true meaning should remain steadfast, regardless of judicial misinterpretation.
Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: While the idea of a living Constitution allows for the application of its principles to contemporary issues, it should not permit changes to the meanings of its terms without formal amendment. This ensures that the Constitution is not subject to arbitrary reinterpretation, which could undermine its stability and integrity. Changes to the Constitution should be made through the formal amendment process as outlined in Article V.
Practical Considerations: Longstanding practices and societal acceptance do not confer constitutionality. Practices inconsistent with the original meaning should be corrected through the amendment process, not through gradual acceptance or reinterpretation.
Kamala Harris's Eligibility Under Originalist Interpretation
If all, or a good many Red states would refuse to allow Kamala to appear on ballot because she's is not a Natural Born Citizen, we could force SCOTUS to decide hopefully.
There are some who like to claim that Trumps mother was not a citizen at time of his birth. I think she was a naturalized citizen though. However:
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The founders relied on Emmerich de Vattel's text for the mesning.
Let's look directly at Emmerich de Vattel's text from "The Law of Nations" to clarify this:
In Book 1, Chapter 19, § 212, Vattel writes:
While this passage does emphasize the father's role, it mentions "parents" in the plural when defining natural-born citizens. This can be interpreted as requiring both parents to be citizens, but it also places particular importance on the father in terms of the child's legal status.
The focus on the father is typical of the time when Vattel wrote, reflecting societal norms where paternal lineage was often the primary determinant of citizenship and legal rights.
So, while Vattel's text does indeed highlight the father's condition, the broader context includes both parents as citizens when defining natural-born citizenship.
This is my understanding. I could be wrong, or the source from which I derived this understanding might have been wrong.
The founders relied on Emmerich de Vattel's text for the mesning (sic).
That the founders who wrote the amendments relied on Vattel's text is implied, but not documented anywhere explicitly. Implied because they all were known to have a copy, and I think I read somewhere that there is written evidence that they made reference to his writings, although not explicit his writings on the issue of Natural Born.