Original Intent

Bait and Switch

I must read over 50 e-mails a day that are sent to us, and not all are flattering. Of these I can divide them into 3 categories,

One word e-mails.
We are racists.
We are misinformed because the Constitution is a “living document” and was meant to be interpreted using modern opinions.

Sometimes I respond to the first two, depending on my mood. Normally I have grown tired of responding to the third. But I think it is time we really took a look at this position because it is used to obfuscate the truth.

Okay, let's assume that the meaning of Constitution is changeable depending on the times and circumstances; the question we need to resolve is what does that mean to the stability of a society.

An amendment to the Constitution is presented to us as the electorate to vote for or against its ratification. We have the framers of the amendment telling us what it means, detailing the definition of words and phrases, so we as the body politic can decide if we want it or not. We have discussions for it on the floor of both houses of Congress that we can either read about or watch on CSPAN. If we have access to these debates and can form an informed judgment for or against it. We go and vote for or against based upon the case presented to us by our statesmen.

Later on someone does not like the original intent that was “sold”to us, and they go to court seeking to negate this intent. Normally they say it is too restrictive, or that the framers could not have anticipated more modern events. The courts can agree and make “exceptions” or reinterpret the original intent on behalf of the plaintiff. In the result is what was wrong to do yesterday is right to do today.

Some people think this is okay, but these same people go to a store and the salesman tells them one thing and they receive something different they are the first ones to scream foul. In fact they are right to do so, because we call this “bait and switch.” You are promised one thing, but when the time comes to deliver it, it is not what you expected.

This is true with the 14^th Amendments definition of “subject to the jurisdiction of”. During the debates, the primary authors of the 14^th Amendment said that,

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Sen. Trumbull

There is even more, to quote P.A. Madison of the Federalist Blog we find the following,

So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States - that is to say - not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely under its laws or boarders.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

But what happened in Wong Kim Ark? The definitions Americans used to ratify the 14^th Amendment were thrown away by the Supreme Court for English common law, that was never ratified or accepted as our common law.

What Justice Gray did was to negate the law of contracts. Because our ratification of a Constitutional Amendment is a contract between the people of the United States and their government. Imagine if you freely entered into a contract to sell your house at a specific price, you negotiated it and it was accepted. Five years later, the person you sold it to lost his job, and went to court and said, “at the time I made the contract I had a job, but now I don't and I want to lower the price I paid so I can keep the house.” Imagine the courts telling you that this was legal, and you had to reduce the price you sold it at. Imagine that the courts even said you could not include a clause in the contract to protect you from this future situation. What faith can you have, what stability can rely on as you move forward? There is none in a situation like that, and this is the problem with interpreting the Constitution as a living document.

This brings us back to the natural born citizen clause of Article II. It is important that we define the intent of the Framers, and abide by it or the stability of the Republic does not exist.

The intent was clear if one honestly looks at the evidence our founding fathers left us. John Jay's letter to Washington is the first document to call for a natural born citizen. Why did Jay underline born? Was it because America was having an influx of English immigrants, who may have children before they renounced their status as English subjects and were naturalized? How many people know that under English common law a natural born subject could never renounce their status as a subject? Was Jay concerned that a child born to an “alien” would be granted citizenship once his father was naturalized. He would be born according to English common law as a natural born subject. So is this why Jay underlined born?

The Founding Fathers and Framers of our Constitution were eloquent men. Their eloquence was not in profuse, flowery phrase that looked nice but said nothing, their eloquence was in their ability to concisely say exactly what they meant. If they wanted a native born citizen, they would have said native born or simply born a citizen. Instead they chose a natural born citizen.

If they adopted English common law for the definition of a natural born citizen, then how could they demand that a Englishman renounce their status as a subject of the English King as a prerequisite for naturalization when according to English common this is impossible. Common sense says that our founding fathers did not apply English common law to citizenship. There is a reason and a source for the phrase natural born that our Founding Fathers and Framers of our Constitution used in adopting the phrase natural born, and it was so obvious they did not need to even debate it or define it.

If we do not live by the intent of the Framers of our Constitution than what be believe to be true today, can easily be false tomorrow. If we allow the politicians and courts to bait and switch on us, then we have no stability in our lives and can never have confidence in our government.

But I offer some hope to the Obots, liberals, progressives and those others who feel that government should be all powerful and have total control of our lives, and do not like the restrictions our Constitution places on our government. The Constitution of the United States is a living document, but it is slow to change. It requires that we amend it through Article V, see those old dusty men understood that times change, and gave us the means to change with the times, and they also understood that temporary passions also change so if we so choose to undertake the arduous task of getting 3/5 of our countrymen to agree with us.

If you want to be abused by everyone then let the politicians and courts piss on you and tell you it is raining, or you can be an empowered member of the greatest country in the world and demand that the government and courts uphold the contract you have with the government, the Constitution in the way it was presented. The choice is yours, you can be a master or slave, but my choice is to fight for what I believe to right and fair for everyone. My choice is to uphold the original intent and if I don't like it, I will work to amend it.