Replies

>>. Do you have a definition that that pre-dates Bingham’s by a more reputable source that says otherwise?<<

Law doesn’t go backwards, it goes forward. Although most Conservatives believe in Res judicata, where there was no “Judicata” the first judgement is, by definition, the bright line demarcation.

After that, each and ever SUBSEQUENT decision is the milestone. Not predecessors.

And, as I said, even the framer of a price of legislation is but an opinion. The language instantiated is our law. SUBSEQUENT clarifications provide guidance. That is how rhw USC was written and what has kept us, mostly, whole.

And it says my kids can be President even though my wife came from Mexico.

Do you say otherwise, despite the fact they can get USA passports with just Birth Certificates?

Law doesn’t go backwards, it goes forward.

Correct. And as the highest law in the land, explicit provisions are made for adapting the Constitution. To my point, the Constitution may only be altered by Amendment (or Constitutional Convention). There is no Constitutional Amendment made to alter the definition of natural born citizen. As such, the original stands until such Amendment is made.

Assuming you were a citizen before your children were born and that you wed prior to their birth, she would be considered "naturalized-by-marriage", quite common, and your children would be natural born citizens as the product of two citizen parents (one naturalized) in country. Any citizen can obtain a passport, natural born or not. The possession of a passport does not indicate any such status.

I was reminded that Bingham prior to 1866 is on the record in 1862 as having stated "There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert.". This is absolutely what was law, and what was taught as law, throughout post-colonial America. There is no rational argument otherwise.

And it says my kids can be President even though my wife came from Mexico.

Do you say otherwise, despite the fact they can get USA passports with just Birth Certificates?

Freedumb, you have queried several posters about your kids being eligible to run for the presidency. In an earlier post, you indicated that both you and your wife were US citizens at the time of the birth of your children in this country.

It would seem, therefore, your kids would be considered natural born citizens even if using the disputed definition of "born on US soil to citizen parents".

You seem to be a bright individual, so I assume I've missed something that would cause you to question posters as to whether they thought your children could theoretically become President of the US?

Would appreciate your enlightening me as to what I must have missed. Thank you.