I Stand Corrected


By Myself.

Back in mid-Mayish, I did a little post about the natural born Citizen clause and how it evolved to the final version which was written into our Federal Constitution.

Who Have Always Been Accustomed To Think And Feel As “Subjects”

I, like others before me, knew that the original proposed wording was not as specific as the final version, and used the term “citizen” instead of the term of art “natural born Citizen”.  Also like many others, I referenced Hamiltons plan.  The thing is that “Hamiltons Plan” was never officially entered into the records.  It was passed around and discussed during the convention, and was recorded as being authored by Hamilton, HOWEVER, it was not officially part of the originally considered and recorded wording.  Close, but no cigar sort of a thing.  I always meant to get back to putting up the correct account, but one thing or another distracted me. 

So, here it is, all laid out nicely.


“Hamiltons Plan”

snip, the relevant language:

screenshot – click to enlarge

snip of Hamilton plan

Pink Link to The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, page 617, which begins the mention of Hamiltons Plan.


screenshot – click to enlarge

Reference to record of original wording Art. 2


screenshot – click to enlarge

TEXT for orig. Art. 2


screenshot – click to enlarge

Second version of Art. 2


screenshot – click to enlarge

Final text Art. 2

See, the original is actually a bit different than Hamiltons.   But both do use the simple term “citizen”.

You’re welcome


~ by ladysforest on August 18, 2013.

43 Responses to “I Stand Corrected”

  1. Hi- I have been checking in every now and then to make sure you’re okay. Your opinion on something, but first a comment. It seems very far fetched to me that Obama was born in Kenya, particularly after having discussions with a Kenyan on another website. Listen to this clip of Reggie Love, particularly at this point: 7:51 7:52. ( laughter then” especially when you were born… “) I would love to know what he was going to say before he caught himself. I listened to it several times to see if he just got off track, but in my opinion, he covered it up. If he were going to make a joke, “especially if you were born in Africa/Kenya..” why didn’t he just make the joke? I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya. But I wish Reggie would have finished the thought. There is the other controversial aspect of playing cards while the bin Laden raid was going on so the video has been pulled, but not before WND got copies (probably others).


    Iron Woman! 🙂

    • Yep, I noticed that too. “Ya come from”…. , ah SQUIRREL. He may have been about to play the race card, or babble out something he shouldn’t. Difficult to say. He doesn’t strike me as a super bright dude. Not everyone is a born lying politician – and if you are not used to being the one the camera is on, and in front of an audience as the star attraction …………. duty or ego, duty or ego ………….. hum.

      The thing is though that they have been misquoting Reggie, he doesn’t say, ” “your parents don’t live together, *YOU* travel all over the world, documents get lost.”

      He said, ” “your parents don’t live together, THEY travel all over the world, documents get lost.”

      I’m pretty sure. But regardless, the story doesn’t quite mesh. He (obama) “found” the BC in the Whitehouse according to this story… and wanted to go slam it on the podium? They why send his attorneys to HI to pick one up for him? Reggie gives too many details for that part of his story to be a “misquote” or to come back and say he misspoke.

      I have always though it was unlikely that obama was born in Kenya. I don’t necessarily believe he was born in HI. I think that had there been a proper, above board, ordinary birth certificate for him in HI he would have released it very early on.

  2. CORRECTION: he didn’t say “Especially when….” but you’ll see what I mean.

  3. Last thing. Reggie could have been thinking about him being born in Hawaii and then moving around, the birth certificate gets lost. But the whole thing makes no sense because what was shown to the press could not have been his found birth certificate. Okay, ‘nite!

  4. For anyone who would like to read the record on Hamiltons plan, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 v. 3, (edited by) Max Farrand, 1911, begins on pg. 617.

    • Do you foresee a Cruz/Rubio eligibility challenge where the Supreme Court may take up the issue and use information such as you have gathered?

      • No, I do not see a challenge. I see a pretense at a challenge, but they damn well know the whole thing could/would cascade on them because of obama.

        Sure, they will just claim they had “no idea” about obama, that they were just as lied to as the rest of the world. Nancy P. will probably develop a fast moving cancer in the next three years, or die of Andrew Breitbart syndrome, and the pollies will ALL be off the hook. She was ultimately the “one in charge” of what little vetting they do.

        BOTH parties knew and know, and BOTH parties are a party to this. John Roberts and his rearranging the obamacare mess so they could declare it Constitutional was the last shoe to drop. We now know that ALL of the established politicians on the GOP side, and every Dem are wretched traitors to our Constitution. I don’t care to give accolades to radio personalities, but Mark Levin is correct in that our government is acting outside of the Constitution, and doing so blatantly.

        • In other words, the government will pretend to look into it, then declare that it doesn’t matter – that any form of US citizenship is, in their opinion, eligible, and because we are a nation of the cult of personality now, we will be led by the nose.

          Did you ever wonder why suddenly all of these people who were not nbC (strictest definition) Niki Haley, Rubio, Jindal and now Cruz – why are all of these people being pushed to the front? Niki H. has kind of been left out the past 6 months, probably because they don’t want her running against Hillary, but from off over somewhere we keep hearing that all these non-nbC pollies are just the right thing for the GOP run.

          It’s the death knell for Article ll. They tried over and over to amend it with no luck – so now they are just using the standard communist tactic. They elected a black guy with “questions” about his eligibility which no one wanted to investigate, to do so means you are racist/Birther. Then they spend eight years shaping the opinion of what a nbC is. They spend eight years picking on people who simply want a definition of the term of Art found in our Constitution until they get tired, or feel embarrassed or believe that there is no real answer out there in our history books. They use their online trolls to “nudge” us, and politicians to mock and abuse us for our honest concerns.

          Meanwhile the “Birthers” appeal goes out to Lawyers who look to court cases to find answers, which are never found in the definitive, leaving just as many questions and allowing for just as many arguments from the government online nudge teams.

          We need historians to dig out the answers. Egg-heads who are immersed in that period of our history, because they will know where to look. NOT Constitutional scholars – “scholars” put their own interpretation on everything, no, we need a book-worm now.

  5. The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So – what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

    There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ – this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ – this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

    OK – what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

    There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

    Born in or out of a country.
    Both parents are citizens.
    One parent is a citizen.
    Neither parent is a citizen.
    The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation – except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

    Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

    ‘Natural Born Citizen’ simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

    What is important about the ‘law of nature’? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia – and it means, “The laws of nature are unchangeable”.

    The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a ‘Natural Born Citizen’, because they CAN NOT change the definition, it’s immutable.

    The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

    Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in – CHAPTER 1 — NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a ‘US National’, he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from “COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION”. The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 — NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are ‘citizens at birth’ through these sections, are citizens “THROUGH NATURALIZATION”. Also, these are not really ‘Citizens at birth’, the are ‘Citizens BY birth’. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz ‘spokespeople’ will always say ‘by birth’), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

    That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are ‘naturalized US citizens’, and NOT ‘natural born Citizens’.

    • What we need is a “definition” that was set down in print during the period of history the Constitution was written. A clear, concise, definition such as one would find in a dictionary, encyclopedia or preferably a letter written between two of the signers of the Constitution.

      Something no one can argue against, or manipulate the meaning of.

      I agree that the purest form of citizenship was the legal standard written into the Constitution, but we have been put on the defensive. We are being nudged out by the crowd who has never even heard the term before a couple of years ago – or maybe as recently as today.

      We need that something which can satisfy the masses, because they truly do not wish to investigate on their own. They seek the path of least ridicule, or the unimpeded road to the Whitehouse for their particular beauty pageant contestant. The strength of the cult of personality is all consuming.

      • Well in more than one place the definition is written, as in The Law of Nations, which was “the” text book at The College of William & Mary, http://www.wm.edu/about/, of which some our founding fathers attended like Thomas Jefferson. Because the term of art was widely understood as mentioned in Minor when the justice wrote “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar it was not deemed necessary to explain what it meant.

        I have wondered if a couple of hundred years from now when we are all androids that someone might say the word “people” was never defined in “We The People.”

        • They equate “arms” with muskets when they try to steal our 2nd Amendment rights don’t they?

    • That’s was a very thought provoking and meticulous post. You may be swaying me on my thinking. Would you then say citizens born over seas by military parents are not natural born citizens? This would most definetly require an amendment if that is the case.

      • At the time the Constitution was signed, we had provision for “Ambassadors” in service to the country, that their children would be born with the full citizen status. Not “the same as”, they were full on nbC.

        Back then it was NOT the thing for a regular military wife to tag along with her Husband if he would have been sent out of the country for any reason. I think that is why we don’t see such a specific addressed. It wasn’t even thought of or done. There was something provided for people in “service” to their country, but I don’t recall the whole of it. Basically it was because they were not in charge of being placed where they served, but were ordered there by their government. Consider the treaties that would have been necessary between the US and other countries for figuring out citizenship. Ugh – too late to go getting into all that tonight.

        As to dual nationality, that is why the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed. Children born to US travelers, to England to visit family for example, would have been English subjects and alien to the US. However that Act did not amend Article ll, section 1, clause 5.

        That act was tossed a few years later, and a similar one passed.

        Still, at no time did any act or amendment make any amendment to Article ll, section 1, clause 5.

    • Hi NH Greg,

      I would say that your logic is ironclad and irrefutable by any means outside of the nah-nah-nah-fingers-in-ears gambit. Of course, I have been making the same argument all over the net for since well before aka obama stole his second term (which, if truth and justice were properly served, should have by all rights been a prison term). However, I think you have fleshed out the logical muscle behind the argument much better than I have (my version is at the end of this post).

      Those of us who have thought this through have come to realize that the Constitution did not fail to unambiguously provide a singular definite meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen as so many have claimed. To the contrary, as you have so clearly shown, to know the exact meaning of those words only requires the Constitution itself and basic logic. Ladysforest need not look elsewhere to lay this question to rest (although the weight of as much collaborating evidence as possible might help to squash down the inevitable flood of reactionary Alinsky tactics spewing from the minions of aka obama and his handlers).

      The Constitution may not tell us explicitly the definition of natural born Citizen, but, by its very phraseology, it very explicitly tells us that “natural born Citizen” cannot simply be the same as “born citizen.”

      It is absurd beyond dispute to claim that the founders would have vainly or incompetently inserted a superfluous, meaningless word into one of the primary sections of such a painstakingly deliberate document, one of our country’s very own birth documents, our Constitution. If they had meant to allow the broader category of “born citizen” they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly must exclude certain types of mere “born citizens.”

      Who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature at birth, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.

      By blood and by dirt – and the anti-American, criminal identity fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.

      • ladysforest, I somehow botched the italics tags I meant to put around the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the second paragraph and it inadvertently carried through into the next paragraph. Is that something you could fix? (No big deal if you can’t – and delete this post if you like. Thx.)

        • Odd, I can’t fix it. But you did select the correct words to highlight for italics from what I can see of your comment in edit.

    • Excellent summary, gregnh.

      I’ve spent years reading old documents, records, diaries, letters and books from around the time of the founding, including the philosophies that played an influential role during that period. Natural Law was quite instrumental, as you noted, on the philosophy of governance in this country.

      My take on this issue is much the same as yours. I differ only in explanation of how it worked, but yours adds further depth. As you pointed out, Natural Law was the philosophical underpinning of what became either common law or statutory law (as well as the Law of Nations’ influence, which included, from a practical application/theory of international law perspective, a rendition of widely accepted Natural Law practices held among various nations). Alone, neither held any force of law, unless a country recognized it through common law or statutory law. So there are two components to understanding the terms and laws: philosophy and law (positive law, as you say, or statutory law).

      There is also the matter of natural rights inherent in a country’s sovereignty, in addition to the hereditary (philosophical) rights of descent from parent to child. A country’s natural rights have no force of law, philosophically or legally, outside its own domain. When a child is born to its citizens outside its jurisdiction, the principle of philosophical descent of citizenship could be recognized as moral and hereditary, but the sovereign nation itself has no ‘natural right’ to claim a child born outside its jurisdiction as a citizen. In order to recognize that child’s citizenship, a law must be enacted to bring both the philosophical and legal recognitions together. The legal recognition in the parents’ home country has no force of law in the country where the child was born, unless they recognize it legally. Whether that foreign country deems the child born on its soil a citizen or not is their decision. All the home country can do is recognize that a child was born to its citizens on foreign soil and as a matter of natural descent afford that child legal status as a citizen.

      There are two components to citizenship: civil and political. All the federal government can provide is civil. The states provide political–the right to participate in government and what disabilities precludes it. Political citizenship if considered the true test of full citizenship. (This concept has gotten muddied through the years, but this was the structure at the time the Constitution was ratified and even after the 14th Amendment, but that’s a discussion for another day.) Basically, the federal government provides civil protections to a foreign-born child by placing him legally under the protection of his father’s (or parent’s) citizenship (natural descent), if certain statutory parental requirements are met. Every child born to a U.S. citizen outside U.S. jurisdiction is not automatically accepted as a citizen. By law, parents must meet certain requirements. A child born on domestic soil to citizen parents do not have such restrictions since it occurred within the boundaries of a sovereign nation’s natural rights.

      The first legal U.S. recognition of a child born on foreign soil to U.S. citizens was in 1790 in the first Naturalization Act. It was included in this act because the U.S., a foreign country to the place of the child’s birth, had, as noted above, no natural rights to recognize the child as its own. It had to be provided legally. This was done through an act of naturalization in Congress so that the child was legally recognized one of its own. The child is naturalized at birth. It occurs automatically at birth, much like the old marriage naturalization, provided the child’s parents are in compliance with the law, then the child must be registered at a U.S. Embassy as a part of the legal process. There are limits, because the birth is not an act of nature that occurred within the U.S.’s jurisdiction.

      Also, it’s important to remember that at the time the Constitution was written that a woman always took her husband’s citizenship, if hers differed, at the time of the marriage, without any further process needed. The practice was codified in the early 1800’s. This held true until 1913 when the Cable Act was passed to abolish the law and the practice. The bride had to go through the naturalization process after that. So, at the time of Constitution’s ratification, both parents of a child, born here or abroad, would have been of the same citizenship. The child followed the father’s citizenship, because his determined the family’s citizenship, including the wife’s. This applied even to children born out of wedlock, if the father was known. If he wasn’t, citizenship defaulted to the mother’s.

  6. Sorry about the updates – I misspelled Hamilton several times, had to fix it because it was bugging me.

    Carry on.

  7. Being s4nt to the ER problem in blood. could bleed out

  8. You’ve got to update us- I’ll be very worried until you post again, even if it is just a couple words.

  9. LF,
    I hope that you are able to contact us soon. We are all very deeply concerned about you.

  10. I’m back. Long story short – Dr. read me the wrong numbers. Far from being at 10K (deaths door) platelets, I am HIGH at 800K. My count is about double the mid-normal range, so I am serious in the OTHER direction, but not in immediate danger. Except for more blood clots.

    10k. Huh. He actually used the words, “You are in immediate danger of bleeding out”.

    He was freaking out a bit on the phone, so I thought, “wow, I’m a goner!”. So, unless my results WERE at 10k on Fri. and jumped up to 800k today (kind of impossible I think), somebody screwed up somewhere. I sure hope there isn’t some patient who really is at 10k and needed to be sent to the hospital instead of me!

    I’m starting to think a transfusion is in my future. At this point I’d almost welcome it. Then they can give the Hemo Dr. a brain transplant.

    I’m Dr. shopping tomorrow.

  11. Good night all, and thank you for your concern and kindness.

    Peace be upon you. 😉

  12. ladysforest, we all need you to stay healthy, alive and kicking — the devil, not any way-to-soon buckets! Incompetent, inadvertent medical scares are not nice. That was an unnecessarily frightening mistake.

    Although Hamilton’s plan was never an official proposal, the founders most certainly did debate the details of the language of the Constitution, no doubt often down to the appropriateness of individual words. And “natural born Citizen” versus Hamilton’s “born Citizen” most certainly was one of those cases. Plain “born Citizen” was specifically rejected in favor of the stronger inborn loyalty check provided by “natural born Citizen” as urged by John Jay.

    To be merely born a citizen was not considered enough of barrier against a possible presidential aspirant with a strong foreign allegiance. For a modern example of how this has been ignored and perverted, just consider the so-called anchor baby, who, though born here, may likely be raised in a foreign land by parents neither of whom have taken an oath of sole (or any) allegiance to our Constitution. It is absurd beyond belief and an insult to the decency and intelligence of those who love the USA of our founding to suggest that such a tenuous quasi-denizen of our society could have been what the founders had in mind when they penned the phrase, “natural born Citizen,” yet many anti-American “progressives” and their low-information, useful idiot brethren would have us believe just that.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. — John Jay

    • I have an image of that John Jay letter in my post, Those Accustomed To Think And Feel As Subjects, linked in this post.

      Yes, they did argue even single words. I’ve spent a little time reading/skimming through some of the records to find that original. Once they decided on that clause, they determined where to place it and gave it to the Committee of eleven. Along with a lot of other revisions. I need to find more info on the Committee of eleven and their endeavors. When the Committee of eleven came back, the wording for the eligibility clause had been altered to the wording shown in the next to last screenshot panel of this post. I am wondering if George Washington had meetings with them during their time away. I would assume so, but I haven’t looked for record of that yet.

      Then the alterations were voted on by the convention. This one passed “in the affirmative”, and along with the rest of the draft eventually went to the Committee of style. It received a couple of tweaks to several words, which would result in the wording that was written into the Constitution, and assigned to it’s permanent location at Article ll, Section 2, Clause 5.

  13. They equate “arms” with muskets when they try to steal our 2nd Amendment rights don’t they?
    LOL yes they do.


  14. LF,
    So glad that you’re home now. I do wish that they could stop these blood clots and help you.

    • Thanks Kitty, I am going to hunt down a new Hemo Dr. This one is supposed to be the best in the area – well, apparently that isn’t saying much.

      I was told that nothing in my results indicates why my platelets are behaving this way – and it’s the increased platelets which cause the clots (probably). Anemia can play a big role in overproduction of platelets, so he’s assuming that is the cause of all this. I am beginning to wonder though, because I have gotten my iron level up a smidge, and my platelets went up too.

  15. Hi- so glad you were able to update. After hearing your doctor’s reaction to 10,000 platelets, I feel lucky to be alive. I got a blood disorder (the name escapes me) and my platelets were less than 5,000. I was hospitalized for about a week in the cancer ward (which I didn’t know right away). The doctor started a steroid treatment and eventually, my platelet number rose enough for me to be released. I had to be monitored for 6 weeks. I could get the condition again, or never get it again.

    I will keep praying to the Divine Mercy for you.

    • Oi! That sounds worse than me!

      They tested me for about everything they could. All the genetic stuff, but nothing seems to show up.

      That you for praying for me Charo, it is a comfort to know.

  16. Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP)

  17. LF,
    I take magnesium, which is proven to help against getting blood clots. Let me quote this place: http://www.livestrong.com/article/463945-magnesium-and-blood-clots/

    “The ratio of calcium to magnesium is important because while calcium is responsible for the formation of blood clots, magnesium is responsible for their termination.”

    This is the type of magnesium that I take:


    I take that kind because they have a sustained release on them. We’ve been taking these since about 2006 or 2007, I believe.


    We can’t get enough magnesium from our food sources anymore. Even in growing organic, they use certain fertilizers that contain more potassium than magnesium. Magnesium controls the actions of calcium. If it didn’t, we’d all die of a heart attack. Which is what we need a certain amount to begin with. Our muscles and nerves need a certain amount. If our heart doesn’t get enough, it will draw from our muscles and nerves and affect them because the heart must have magnesium, not calcium. That’s why when you hear of open-heart surgeries, they use a calcium channel blocker from hitting your heart. Well, mg is a natural calcium channel blocker.

    It would be weird if this helped you.

  18. Here’s a memoriam thing about her. She passed away in 2005. Part of this covers her work in magnesium. You’ll see from reading that she was quite the expert.


  19. Stupid WordPress! I cannot sign in to my admin., I cannot even send them a report. Apparently they are “trying something” with new accounts and it has spilled over to legacy accounts.

    So, if anyone has any comments in moderation, I am not ignoring it, I cannot access it.

  20. There were in fact two Hamilton plans. His first plan was introduced on June 18th, 1787 and can be read in Madison’s Notes

    “Mr. HAMILTON, had been hitherto silent on the business before the Convention …He read his sketch in the words following: towit ”

    “I. “The Supreme Legislative power of the United States of America to be vested in two different bodies of men; the one to be called the Assembly, the other the Senate …”


    “IV. The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour-the election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in the Election Districts”


    This is the plan referred to on page 617 of Farrand’s as having been passed around at the Convention.

    Hamilton’s second plan which was not passed around at the Convention begins on page 619 with this introduction by Farrand:

    “The document that has just been discussed is to be distinguished from the following, which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.”

    It is this second plan that has the born a citizen clause

    • I think that one which was read aloud was The British Plan, and was a bit too “British” in nature, and so was not loved.

      The second one – Farrands details, was not read. I didn’t imply that it was, I said it was passed around by Hamilton. I should have specified “privately passed around”, but I am not certain it was strictly privately done. It was not officially part of the convention, so there was no reading aloud or discussion of it. That was where I had made the mistake in the May post that I mentioned. I had thought this second plan was the one read, discussed and copied.

      I read a brief account of both of those plans in other “records” of the convention as well as Farrands, which gives different details. Very similar, but fills in a bit more detail.

      • Yes, Hamilton’s June, 1787 draft is often referred to as the British plan.

        The second plan as explained by James Madison was a “[c]opy of a Paper communicated to James Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, which, he said, delineated the Constitution which be would have wished to be proposed by the Convention. He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.”

        Notice he says “about the close of Convention” and that Hamilton wished this plan had been the Constitution “proposed by the Convention”.

        So the question is when was this written and did others see it?

        One clue is in the letters of Hamilton.

        In the early 1800’s, Hamilton was being accused of have proposed that the Constitution incorporate a monarchy. This was based on his original draft (British Plan) that included an Executive (Governour) who served a life term (“during good behavior”).

        In 1803, Timothy Pickering wrote Hamilton telling him what a leader of the Jacobins had said {That Genl. Hamilton proposed (and it was understood, advocated) in the General Convention, that the President of the United States, and the Senators, should be chosen for life: that this was intended as an introduction to Monarchy: And that the Federalists of this county (Essex) had adopted Genl Hamilton’s plan.}


        In September , 1803 Hamilton responded in a letter discussed his position.

        “Accordingly, it is a fact, that my final opinion was against an Executive during good behaviour, on account of the increased danger to the public tranquilly incident to the election of a Magistrate of this degree of permanency. In the plan of a Constitution, which I drew up while the convention was sitting, and which I communicated to Mr Madison about the close of it, perhaps a day or two after, the office of President has no greater duration than for three years ”


        So according to Hamilton the second was given to Madison within a few days after the Convention closed.

        • That is when he gave to it Madison, but from what I had read he did discuss his second plan with others prior to the close. No debate occurred.

          The reason I included Hamilton (in this post) was to make the point that it was not Hamiltons Plan which gave birth to the wording in Article ll, section 1 clause 5, but that it was indeed the case that the original wording called for a simple citizen, just as Hamiltons Plan had suggested. Wanted to set the record straight on that you see.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: