Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Lunch break

I might've used this space to wish Barack Obama a happy birthday, but then I heard Rush Limbaugh say this:

Tomorrow is Obama’s birthday, not that we’ve seen any proof of that … What? We haven’t seen any proof of that! They tell us August 4th is the birthday; we haven’t seen any proof of that! Sorry. It is what it is.

So instead, I'll wish Louis Armstrong a happy birthday. Unless he's a birthday-liar too.

By Ezra Klein  |  August 4, 2010; 12:35 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why we'll have to get serious about health-care costs in one graph
Next: Does international aid win hearts and minds?

Comments

With all due respect to Rush and his parodic nature, I think we actually have seen proof of Obama's birthday. It's just that birthers deny the validity of the birth certificate presented.

Oh, and wasn't it The Globe that just claimed that they had undeniable proof Obama was Born in Africa?

I had to bury my face in my hands when I saw that cover.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 4, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

BTW, entertainers frequently lie about their birthdays, especially the years. Mostly because they want to be younger than they actually are, because you is attractive, and it's always better to come off as some kind of prodigy.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 4, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

But he *was* a birthday "liar," Ezra! Well, I like "patriotic embellisher" better:

"Armstrong often stated in public interviews that he was born on July 4, 1900,[4] a date that has been noted in many biographies. Although he died in 1971, it was not until the mid-1980s that his true birth date of August 4, 1901 was discovered through the examination of baptismal records."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong#Early_life

Posted by: andrewlong | August 4, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

It's clear that Armstrong genuinely believed his birthday was July 4, 1900. That's the date he put on his draft registration card when he registered in September 1918. At that time he would only have been 17, but would have thouoght that the was 18. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_I_Draft_Registration_Card_for_Louis_Armstrong_1918.gif.

Posted by: stlyrface | August 4, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I've got to know: Did Ezra not know that Louis always said his birthday was July 4? What's the chance of picking a controversial birthday by mistake?

Posted by: Hopeful9 | August 4, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect, Kevin, what you have seen is proof of nothing. The only thing you and all other Americans have seen is what was posted on a web site and shilled by Obama supporters. Analysis has shown that all of the COLBs displayed (and yes, there were a couple) were altered. That may or may not be true but you cannot prove otherwise. Since it is possible, it cannot be proof.

All that aside, however, Barry's claim that his biological daddy was Barack Hussein Obama results in the inescapable conclusion that he is not eligible to be the POTUS since daddy was not a U.S. citizen which is required to meet the definition of 'natural born citizen', a Constitutional requirement.

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 4, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

prsmithsr - You are wrong! Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama's own citizenship.

Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace) as they apply to citizenship in the United States. Here's how the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explained the matter in 2008:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.

Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).

It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth.

Posted by: spadams999 | August 4, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

dear louis

if you can get this message behind the pearly gates....
thank you for playing the "st louis blues" the way you did.
my life would have not been nearly as wonderful
without it.
your music is immortal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2TUlUwa3_o&feature=PlayList&p=38A2560CBE32C1D5&playnext=1&index=20
thank you....
your fan,
jkaren

Posted by: jkaren | August 4, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

dear louis

i know you can hear me....
in memory of your birthday tonight,
i'm gonna put on my black stillettos
and dance to st louis blues,
and do my best west coast swing.
and when he turns me to do that sugar push....
i'm gonna blow you a kiss, and say,
"thank you louis, for this moment!"
cause there is nuthin' like dancing
to your "st louis blues!!!"
your fan,
jkaren

Posted by: jkaren | August 4, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"You are wrong! Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama's own citizenship."

You are incorrect but I invite sources for your definition. The 14th Amendment, Ark, etc. all dealt with citizenship but not with the definition of 'natural born' citizen. Clearly there is a distinction or the founding fathers wouldn't have used the term.

"It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth."

Yes, he is a citizen (maybe). No, he is not a natural born citizen.

Ben Franklin told us that multiple copies of _The Law of Nations_, a highly respected legal reference work both then and now, was used during constitutional deliberations. That work defines a 'natural born citizen' as one who was born on the soil of parentS who were citizenS (plural). Writings of the founding fathers prove that they were deeply concerned that the POTUS might be adversely influenced if he held multiple allegiances. Barry is a prime example of their fears come true.

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 4, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

prsmithsr: The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, which was admitted for statehood on August 21, 1959. He is therefore a naturalized citizen regardless of the status of his parents. I know there is some controversy regarding the definition of "naturalized citizen". The Supreme Court has refused to hear arguments over "birther" claims and considers these lawsuits "frivolous".

I suggest that it's time for the birther movement to move on. We have serious problems in the US right now, and they're not because of Obama. Let's spend our time resolving these problems rather than throwing out issues designed to divide the country. Your concern over "multiple allegiances" is fabricated and nothing more than fear-mongering. Obama IS president - time to move on.

Posted by: spadams999 | August 4, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"The Fourteenth Amendment". . .

. . .is irrelevant in this discussion. (and you were doing so well -- NOT!)

"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, which was admitted for statehood on August 21, 1959. He is therefore a naturalized citizen"

Sheesh. I suggest you go back and read the Constitution. IFF Barry was born in Hawaii, an as yet unproved assertion, then he is a citizen but he is NOT a naturalized citizen which is a whole different kettle of fish which IS covered by the 14th.

"I suggest that it's time for the birther movement to move on."

No problem; just as soon as Barry's execution for usurpation/treason is carried out (along with Nancy Pelosi who falsified his paperwork).

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 4, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"With all due respect, Kevin, what you have seen is proof of nothing. The only thing you and all other Americans have seen is what was posted on a web site and shilled by Obama supporters. Analysis has shown that all of the COLBs displayed (and yes, there were a couple) were altered. That may or may not be true but you cannot prove otherwise. Since it is possible, it cannot be proof."

i am going to write out a prescription for you to listen to more louis armstrong music. this will take care of the lingering symptoms of
obs. (obama birther syndrome)

1.~~~~First dose -begin as soon as possible.
use as often as necessary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWPOjDhCOTY

dr jkaren

Posted by: jkaren | August 4, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

prsmithsr: The Fourteenth Amendment is NOT irrelevant!! Your assertion that Obama is not a "naturalized citizen" is not shared by many, INCLUDING the court, which refused to hear the case. And your continued rant on whether Obama was born in Hawaii is just tiresome. I'm with you - dr jkaren - this guy needs some serious Louis Armstrong!

I'm done with this discussion. Have a nice life.

Posted by: spadams999 | August 4, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"Have a nice life."


yes. good advice.
prsmithsr....
dont let obama's birth certificate
stand between you and your happiness.
life is short.
whenever obama's birth certificate comes into your mind....
do some breathwork....
breathe in, "Love."
breathe out, "Peace."

Posted by: jkaren | August 4, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"prsmithsr: The Fourteenth Amendment is NOT irrelevant!!"

{sigh} It is irrelevant because it does not define 'natural born citizen'. So far, the only definition we have it that given us in _The Law of Nations_ which, I will admit, is being ignored. Hopefully Lt. Col. Lakin will get us off of square one soon.

Wish you could have presented more relevant information. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't. Oh well.

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 4, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"prsmithsr: The Fourteenth Amendment is NOT irrelevant!!"

{sigh} It is irrelevant because it does not define 'natural born citizen'. So far, the only definition we have is that given us in _The Law of Nations_ which, I will admit, is being ignored. Hopefully Lt. Col. Lakin will get us off of square one soon.

Wish you could have presented more relevant information. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't. Oh well.

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 4, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"dont let obama's birth certificate
stand between you and your happiness."

I think your reading skills leave something to be desired. Let me check. dum-de-dum. Yep, I clearly said that the birth certificate is irrelevant.

So how about you; got a sourced definition of 'natural born citizen' that's better than the one the founding fathers used?

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 4, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"Your assertion that Obama is not a "naturalized citizen" is not shared by many,"

Only all those who have read the Constitution and understand the difference between 'natural born citizen' and 'naturalized citizen'.

It is interesting to note, however, that if Barry was born somewhere other than on U.S. soil, he wouldn't be a naturalized citizen or any other kind of citizen since he was NOT naturalized. That would make him an illegal alien!

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 4, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

It will take some decades to rewrite the history of our founding. Unless Obama can come up with an alternative father, he is not a constitutional president.

It makes no difference where Obama was born, Hawaii or Kenya, he can never be a natural born citizen based on the citizenship of his father.

Our justices, Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Chief justice Charles Evans Hughes, justices James Wilson, Joseph Story and James Kent all explain and cite the definition of a natural born citizen. They all refer to "citizen parents".

John Bingham, drafter of the 14th Amendment "Born of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen".

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 4, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Birfers are funny.

Though prsmithsr may be receiving a visit from the Secret Service soon.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | August 4, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

The 1773 Le droit des gens (Law of Nations) edition was used by the Founders during the drafting of the Constitution.

Chapter XIX: Les naturels, ou indigenes, font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens.

There is a document in the Congressional Record dated 1781 where the Founders translated the French word naturels to natural born, please note it was not natural but natural born.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 4, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

"Though prsmithsr may be receiving a visit from the Secret Service soon."

Oh, I rather doubt they have any interest in little ole me. My ramblings are neither new nor original.

Hopefully, Lt. Col. Lakin's court martial will bring out the truth and end this nightmare but either way there's more to this story than the birth certificate and it will come out.

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 4, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"got a sourced definition of 'natural born citizen' that's better than the one the founding fathers used?"

You clearly need one.

A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | August 4, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

The source document translating naturels to natural born:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jc0216%29%29

Article III: Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels

3
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 4, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

A 1781 trade agreement between the US and France, with the agreement shown in both English and French. Within it, "naturels" is translated as "natural born". In this case refering to subjects/sujets.

In French.

ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.

And in English

The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.

And there you have it. Naturels was understood as "Natural Born". Thus the later translation better reflects what the founders, many of whom were quite literate in French, would have understood.

Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens. becomes in English, as understood by the founding generation(s)(Franklin was much older than most, but was one of the francophones):

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 4, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1928 Edition:

Page 833: Native, Native Citizen. Those born in a country of parents who are citizens. There is no distinction between native born and natural born.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 4, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

We know the term "natural born citizen" and the variant "natural born free citizen", was in use well before the Constitution was written. But almost every use gives no hint as to it's exact meaning.

However the Journals of the Continental Congress, for July 27, 1781 documents a translation of the French "naturels" to "natural born" in a secret agreement with France. Vattel, in French, said that "naturels" and "indigenes" were those born in country of parents who were citizens.

Many have argued that "naturels" means natives, and "indigenes" doesn't mean naturals or natural born either. (In reality depending on context, either word could be translated as "naturals".

But apparently those who translated that 1781 treaty felt "naturales" when modifying "subjects" was equivalent to "natural born". If that was the understanding, then Vattels "naturels" could also be "natural born".

The evidence is quite strong that "naturales" was understood, in these sorts of contexts, to mean "natural born".

Thus the case for the Vattel definition", requiring birth in the country of citizen parents, being the one the founders understood for "natural born citizen", is very strong.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 4, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Total silence. You do have a way of killing a debate lol!

Posted by: prsmithsr | August 5, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

We have only seen an internet presentation of a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. This can be obtained by anyone in Hawaii whether they are born there or not. A Long Form Birth Certificate is what we HAVE NOT seen. What bothers me is that Mr. Obama has gone through considerable trouble and expense to shield the real document. Why? And why would he not want to end the controversy by doing what all other modern day presidents have done: RELEASE THE REAL DOCUMENT. Drop the name calling and sarcasm! Americans who are sceptical have a right to question and demand the truth!

Posted by: GuyNamedJoe | August 5, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the two birthers that the meaning of "natural-born" is somewhat contested. The quotation of the Constitution and other older sources is not very compelling, because the key question is what legal authorities today decide that term means. A reasonable definition of "natural-born" would be that the person was naturally born in one of the United States. Not everyone would accept that definition, fine (although I strongly suspect the people making the argument would change sides depending on the ideology and background of the person being discussed).

It seems to me extremely likely that today's legal authorities, if the matter were ever to be decided in a court, would rule that Obama's birth in a US state would override all of the other concerns about his parentage and therefore make him eligible for the presidency. Perhaps they would not so rule -- but I think they would.

But the key thing is that such a way of thinking about it removes the patina of certainty from the birthers' arguments. "Natural-born" is not defined in the Constitution -- it is only the opinion of some people, most of whom find fault with Obama's personality or politics, that it is essential to find out what the Founders meant by that (the possibility that they left such things undefined for good reason never occurs to anyone).

Think of it this way: Bringing in an outside source from the era, to be blunt, simply has no standing in our legal system. If this birther or that talk radio host thinks it should -- this has no relevance.

Also, note that the House of Representatives voted unanimously that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. You may believe that he was not born in Hawaii, but there is compelling evidence that he was born in Hawaii, including a birth certificate that you choose not to recognize and testimony from a person living in Hawaii at the time, and there is no evidence whatsoever that he was born elsewhere. It seems to me that at the very least people who claim that Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere else in the world should at least produce a passport or visa document indicating that Obama's mother was traveling at the time of Obama's birth. There is no such document, because Obama was born in Hawaii.

Anyway, don't be fooled by these birthers. Whether it's for reasons of obtuseness or misguidedness I cannot say, but they are obfuscating the issue for their own political agenda.

Posted by: wovenstrap | August 6, 2010 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Also, pro tip: when you fantasize about Obama's imaginary execution for treason, it rather gives skeptics a lot of reason to disbelieve any claims that you are going about this with dispassionate objectivity. You basically have to choose -- consider Obama a traitor, fine -- there are no grounds for that assertion, but people can believe what they want to believe. But when you make that assertion and also pursue this ridiculous quest for an Obama who is an illegal immigrant, you're rather giving the game away. People who are interested in the truth will assume, accurately, that your conclusions about the status of Obama's citizenship and eligibility for the presidency are driven by your hatred for him.

Posted by: wovenstrap | August 6, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

The fact that his father was not a citizen is a separate question and stands independent of his birth location.

The presence of some here who put up hurdles
and try to explain away his qualifications is puzzling and disturbing.

Nothing short of a full disclosure and an opening of his records to the public, and a ruling on natural born citizen is satisfactory.

An example is the recent release of his mother's passport records. Included in the application process she wrote the name Soebarkak for Obama's name.

Was Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro?


Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 6, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child.

The Founders included the natural born citizen requirement to exclude aliens by birth and blood.

Obama (Soebarkak) may be born in Hawaii but he is not a natural born citizen.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 6, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Correction the spelling is Soebarkah

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 6, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

On your first comment, I think we agree. My chain of causal logic runs, (a) natural-born can perfectly well cover Obama, provided that he was born in Hawaii, and (b) he was born in Hawaii. My argument requires two pillars, and both are strong. You haven't added anything but your opinion that he is not a natural-born citizen, which is worth about the electricity required to bring the letters to this web page.

If you were serious about plumbing what "natural born" might mean, you would grapple with the serious body of U.S. case law, most of it from the 19th century, that definitely seems to point in the direction of establishing that birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to make one a natural-born citizen.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

You have not mentioned the name "Curtis" once, for instance, and lacking any serious effort to tackle U.S. precedent on this issue, there's no reason to take you seriously. But I do it anyway.

Posted by: wovenstrap | August 6, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen" said Leahy.

This statement was obtained from Senator Leahy's website.

The statement today is scrubbed.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 6, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

While Pat Leahy removed Senate Res. 511 from his Senate web site, you can find it in “Thomas”, the Congressional Archives, April 30 2008. Every Senator signed 511 in which they all agreed that having been born of two citizen parents qualified one for the presidency as a natural born citizen. Obama signed it too.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 6, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy.

“I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”


“It is silly for anyone to argue that Senator McCain is not eligible to become president,” said McCaskill.

“I would hope that this is something we can all agree on, for goodness sakes.”


At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.


“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 6, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

John McCain enabled Barack Obama to be president by providing cover because neither candidate is a natural born citizen as required by Article II Sect. 1 Cl 5 of the Constitution.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 6, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who doubts should take a few minutes to read Article II, than read the decisions in The Venus 12 U.S. 253, paragraph 289, by Chief Justice Marshall, or Minor v. Happersett, the decision by Chief Justice Morrison Waite.

Read the paragraph in the presentation to the joint session by 14th Amendment author John Bingham in 1866.

The truth is there, and not difficult to understand.

Why is Congress ignoring this..the answer is simple..they want Pork to feed their parasites.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 6, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Unlike McCain, Obama was born in the United States. That is the reason that it is necessary to establish some other path to "natural-born" status. Since Obama was born in the United States, he is a natural-born citizen. This is the thing you consistently seem to overlook. These other methods of determining natural-born citizenship obtain when it cannot be established by the location of birth.

Consider the following analogy. We are trying to determine whether something is a pizza or not. We say that a pizza is defined as a circle of dough covered in cheese and tomato sauce. That is what a pizza is. However let us say that we add that a pizza can also be made of cardboard if it is a prop in a student play. The second definition only comes to play if the first definition is not met -- if the first definition is met, then you don't need to look at the second definition. If I say to you, "that circle of dough with cheese and tomato sauce cannot be a pizza because it is not made of cardboard."

That is the logical fallacy you are making with Obama and McCain. Obama doesn't need the extra standard of definition because he was born in the United States -- unlike McCain -- and this is the standard most courts have upheld.

Posted by: wovenstrap | August 7, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Unlike McCain, Obama was born in the United States. That is the reason that it is necessary to establish some other path to "natural-born" status. Since Obama was born in the United States, he is a natural-born citizen. This is the thing you consistently seem to overlook. These other methods of determining natural-born citizenship obtain when it cannot be established by the location of birth.

Consider the following analogy. We are trying to determine whether something is a pizza or not. We say that a pizza is defined as a circle of dough covered in cheese and tomato sauce. That is what a pizza is. However let us say that we add that a pizza can also be made of cardboard if it is a prop in a student play. The second definition only comes to play if the first definition is not met -- if the first definition is met, then you don't need to look at the second definition. You are basically saying, "that circle of dough with cheese and tomato sauce cannot be a pizza because it is not made of cardboard."

That is the logical fallacy you are making with Obama and McCain. Obama doesn't need the extra standard of definition because he was born in the United States -- unlike McCain -- and this is the standard most courts have upheld.

Posted by: wovenstrap | August 7, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The Founders relied on the Law of Nations to assist them writing the Constitution. There is a letter by Franklin stating this. Thomas Jefferson recommended the book to his nephew.

The 1797 English translation edition states the following in chapter XIX:

The natives or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

The country of father is that of the children.

I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will only be his place of birth and not his country.

Posted by: dancingrabbit | August 8, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Nice job -- if I didn't know better, I'd've thought you were actively trying to produce weak arguments.

Posted by: wovenstrap | August 9, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company