Replies

armordog99 said:

They are using the Wong Kim Ark case as precedent. I think the Wong Kim Ark case was decided wrongly and that just because you are born on US Soil should not make you a natural born citizen. However, I don't see the supremes reversing the Wong Kim Ark decision. I think for those of us that believe only someone born of two US citizens on American soil should be eligible for president we will need to push a constitutional amendment.

These supporters of this view are wrong for two reasons:

Case decisions are based on the context of the case, and this case was not about Article II requirements
The Supreme Court rewrote the 14th Amendment, as there is no mention of "Natural born" anywhere within it.

What the Supreme Court did in 1898 was clearly Unconstitutional. Looking at the text of the 14th Amendment, their decision allowed a back door for any citizen (naturalized or otherwise) to be Natural Born Citizens. The amendment clearly states those born in the United States and those Naturalized in the United States are "Citizens of the United States".

Their poor logic is also clear in their decision as 2 of the cases they use to bridge the citizen-subject "gap" also mention de Vattel's definition of a natural-born citizen, which would have clearly eliminated any discussion with regards to "natural born citizens" born to foreign parents. The authority of the King to grant protection for his subjects is not dependent on place or birthright. The authority of a republic to grant protection for its citizens most certainly is dependent on place and birthright.

Should the Supreme Court uphold this decision in the case of a sitting president, they would be in clear violation of Articles I & II of the U.S. Constitution. If or when that day arrives we will know 100%, without question, they are to be eliminated along with the rest of the federal government. This breach in separation of powers along with the allowance of a foreign-usurping president would be quite clear, and the framing fathers warned us about this breach and what to do to correct it.

I agree with you that this was a wrong decision. In fact when you read the dissenting opinion they actually point out the fact that the decision makes it possible for someone born from two parents who are not citizens to become president.

It appears from some of the things I read that one or more of the justices in the majority opinion had been supporters of Chester Arthur who's father was british. They knew this and that's why they made the decision they did.

The problem is that this case has been used as precedent in many other cases. I think there is a snowball's chance in hell of the US Supreme court reversing it after all this years. I think the only way to correct this is a constitutional amendment specifically stating that a natural born citizen is someone born of two parents on American Soil.

I took an oath of allegiance to the constitution. One of the parts of the constitution is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the law. If I do not like their interpretation then I need to get my legislatures to pass a new law or an amendment. Your suggestion of armed revolt, I believe, is premature. Currently under the laws of this country Obama is legally president (as long as he was born in Hawaii).