Re: Re: 'Does Nikki Haley qualify as a natural born citizen?' [Village News, Tevebaugh letter, 4/27/23]

I would suggest that Mr. Tevebaugh reread my reply concerning Nikki Haley's eligibility in running for President of the United States. In his second response, he mentions exactly the same things as in his first response, which I answered. He seems confused that "citizen" and "natural born citizens" are not the same thing.

No where in the Constitution does it mention the term "natural born citizens" except when referring to eligibility of becoming president. The term "citizen" is used in various places in the Constitution. The terms cannot be intermingled to mean the same thing or why would the Founding Fathers not have specifically used the term only when describing eligibility for President and nowhere else in the Constitution. Please think about that.

Also, please remember our new country was just recovering from an unbelievable, unthinkable win of a war against England. There were still many "Tories" living in the "new" United States and the country was still raw from gaining Independence from England. It was of the upmost importance in the Founding Fathers' minds and hearts, that there would be and could not be anyone in the position of President to have any allegiance to a foreign power.

The words, "natural born citizen (or "subject" as known as the appropriate word in England) pertained to someone born on the soil of the said country and both parents were citizens of that country. This clearly was not a new thought but a well-established thought throughout many parts of the world at this time. Both parents had to be citizens. The Founding Fathers did not stipulate this necessity to be required of a person to be a citizen.....just to be considered a "natural born citizen."

I apologize to Mr. Tevebaugh and the readers for my typo...Mr. Tevebaugh is correct. My reference should have been Article II

Again, I repeat. I never said that "Vattel's Law of Nations" was law, just as Webster's Dictionary is not law, but us, as humans, refer to the dictionary when a meaning for a word or phrase is in question. I repeat, there was no "dictionary" in 1789, so we who are living in 2023 must refer to "sources" used in 1789.

There is proof that "Vattel's Law of Nations" was present at the Constitutional Convention. Benjamin Franklin had two copies, the original, in French, and also a translated copy in English. George Washington was in possession of the third, as proven by an article written by the New York Times recently that Washington owed hundreds of dollars in fines for having this book and not returning it to the library,

Mr. Tevebaugh also feels that because one of my stated Supreme Court cases was overturned, somehow the wordings in this document must also be overturned. The proceedings might have been overturned, but wording or language in the document have no bearing to this outcome.

Lastly, yes, I want the Constitution to be followed as written. Mr. Tevebaugh states, "then there should be no need for Amendments." Again, Mr, Tevebaugh please read your Constitution. The Founding Father's allowed for corrections, clarifications, stipulations to be made as stated in Article V. It is an Article all to itself to give Congress by two-thirds vote the ability to add Amendments to the Constitution.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution....shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several states..." So yes, I want the Constitution followed as written, including the Amendments that are legally and constitutionally part of the Constitution.

Judy Willis