Replies

Very true. But instead of clarifying or changing the Natural Born Citizen definition, the current group in Washington is doing everything in their power to ignore the issue by belittling Constitutionally-minded citizens and imprisoning a soldier for simply demanding due process.

It is not that we can not change the laws, it is that our federal government refuses to accept there is a problem that has been lingering since the early 1800’s and needs clarified. Once it is clarified, We the People and the federal government can amend it if necessary. This is clearly failing to occur so the process put in place by the framing fathers can not be completed properly.

That’s one way to look at the issue.

Another way is that since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there have only been two classifications of Americans: born citizens and naturalized citizens and if a person is a Citizen of the United States at Birth as spelled out in the US Code, then they are a natural born citizen as well and if a person is a citizen but not a Citizen of the United States at Birth, then they are a naturalized citizen and therefore cannot qualify as a natural born citizen.

Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.

“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established BY THE MERE FACT OF BIRTH under circumstances described in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes AT ONCE a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”–Supreme Court of the United States, US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

james, we can always count on you to misread and misinterpret just about everything you post. You said, “since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there have only been two classifications of Americans: born citizens and naturalized citizens ...” which is demonstrably false. Your support citation says “two SOURCES” of citizenship, not two classifications. The two sources are only defined according to the 14th amendment. This is not a comprehensive statement on ALL citizenship in the United States. Gray acknolwedged natural born citizenship as a separate class of citizenship prior to his deliberation on 14th amendment citizenship. It’s really better for you to read but not post here ... at least not until you learn to post competently.

Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.

There is "no confusion" because you are attempting to define something without clear definition with something similar and clearly defined in the Constitution. As I have mentioned over and over and over and over and over again, the 14th Amendment did not nor could not (re)define Natural Born Citizenship because it was intended to grant citizenship to emancipated black slaves who had no citizenship at birth.

That is why you do not see "Natural Born Citizen" in the amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the biggest fallacy the Supreme Court has ever decided on, and many historians agree. All it takes is one gander at the dissertation from David Ramsey in 1789 discussing this matter to see just how off-base their decision was.

And before anyone questions David Ramsey's authority he was the president PRO TEMPORE of the Continental Congress between 1785 and 1786 when John Hancock was elected but could not attend. He was also the premier U.S. political historian at the time and was promoted to the position of Congressional historian because of it. I will take Ramsey's definition and concepts over any supreme court's sloppy interpretation of a law. Ironically, in WKA, they failed to cite Ramsey's work when the knew full well it was the definitive answer to the intents of Article II eligibility requirements during the transition of British and American citizens between 1776 and 1789.

Even the authors of the 14th Amendment clearly understood and stated Natural Born Citizenship was in no way redefined. I simply do not understand why people continue to attempt to make poor conclusions such as this. The only way to redefine what Natural Born Citizenship is to amend it once the Supreme Court tells us what it means in the context of the law. And that law is ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution. It is not in the context of "John Q. Public" who comes off the boat fresh from China. It is in regards to Barack Obama, John McCain, Romney, Callero, Palin, Biden, and other politician on the ballots. This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how "outdated", "sexist", or "taboo" you or anyone else believes it to be!

Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.

There is "no confusion" because you are attempting to define something without clear definition with something similar (yet distinctly different) and clearly defined in the Constitution. As I have mentioned over and over again like a broken record, the 14th Amendment did not nor could not (re)define Natural Born Citizenship because it was intended to grant citizenship to emancipated black slaves who had no citizenship at birth.

That is why you do not see "Natural Born Citizen" in the amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the biggest fallacy the Supreme Court has ever decided on. All it takes is one gander at the dissertation from David Ramsey in 1789 discussing this matter to see just how off-base their decision was. No review of "common British Law" is required.

And before anyone questions David Ramsey's authority he was the president PRO TEMPORE of the Continental Congress between 1785 and 1786 when John Hancock was elected but could not attend. He was also the premier U.S. political historian at the time and was promoted to the position of Congressional historian because of it. I will take Ramsey's definition and concepts over any supreme court's sloppy interpretation of a law. Ironically, in WKA, they failed to cite Ramsey's work when the knew full well it was the definitive answer to the intents of Article II eligibility requirements during the transition of British and American citizens between 1776 and 1789.

Even the authors of the 14th Amendment clearly understood and stated Natural Born Citizenship was in no way redefined. I simply do not understand why people continue to attempt to make poor conclusions such as this. The only way to redefine what Natural Born Citizenship is to amend it once the Supreme Court tells us what it means in the context of the law. And that law is ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution. It is not in the context of "John Q. Public" who comes off the boat fresh from China. It is in regards to Barack Obama, John McCain, Romney, Callero, Palin, Biden, and other politician on the ballots. This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how "outdated", "sexist", or "taboo" you or anyone else believes it to be.