Replies

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 This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how "outdated", "sexist", or "taboo" you or anyone else believes it to be.

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.

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a “natural born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in allegiance of the United States, natural born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009.
The decision in Ankeny was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to hear the appeal and the decision has not been appealed to the federal courts.

If and when some court, any court in the land agrees with your interpretation with regard to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility, then I will give your point of view serious consideration and a legitimate way to look at this issue. Until then, not so much.

According to Westlaw, “Wong Kim Ark” has been cited in more than 1000 subsequent decisions. It is stare decisis as of this date.