Why so angry at me for making that statement, even if I may have erred in doing so, if it's just a simple matter of legal definition?
I'll admit that I didn't consult case law, or search the Constitution for the exact definition I stated. However, I feel that my statement is in accord with the original intent of the Framers, regarding the required birth conditions for qualifications of a President.
It's my hope that the high court will shed some light and clarity on the precise interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen qualification in the Constitution. It's entirely reasonable to assume that they would choose to define it as I have, if they consult the reasoning and original intent of the Framers.
I’m not a troll, but I am a lawyer. In the U.S. v. Ark case, the Supreme Court stated that at common law, a natural born subject was anyone born in the dominions of the King, even if both parents were non-British subjects. The exceptions to the rule are the ones laid out in the Ark case, such as ambassadors, people merely visitors, etc.
It seems to me that the Framers would have been very familiar with the term natural born subject under the common law. Because the U.S. is not a monarchy, there are no U.S. “subjects”, but rather citizens. Thus, natural born citizen probably means the same thing as under the common law - a child born within the territory of the United States, regardless of the nationality of the parents, with limited exceptions.
In my opinion, Donofrio’s case will fail because natural born citizen will be interpreted as meaning the same thing as natural born subject at common law. Of course, that assumes SCOTUS even takes the case.
My fear is that even if SCOTUS takes Donofrio’s case, it will define “natural born citizen,” but leave the issue of the birth certificate untouched.
Why so defensive, Windflier? I wasn't the least bit "angry." I simply tend to state my objections in a very clear and precise language, as opposed to relying on vague phrasing ("maybe you ought to reconsider..." or "it seems to me that I remember once reading somewhere...")
Anyone casting doubts upon the eligibility of a President-Elect to assume office must proffer air-tight Aristotelian arguments.
Like many here at this forum, I'm seriously wondering how I'm going to avoid ever seeing that smug face hovering over the Presidential Seal on the t.v. screen during the coming four years, but any arguments launched to prevent that must have an unassailable legal foundation.
Regards,