>>...A person born outside the United States is born under the sovereignty of some other state which would then have jurisdiction to dictate his acts. A person born inside the United States is subject, at birth only to the sovereignty of the United States....<<
Again, that flies in the face of simple common sense and I gave two *very common* examples where a child born inside the US is subject to two (or more) sovereign nations depending on parental citizenship. Two couples I know would tell you and the S.C. to go pound sand as their children (all born within the US) were born with dual citizenship and dual national allegiances as both fathers are foreign citizens. The US does not have sole claim to those kids and those kids can (and do) eagerly claim their foreign citizenship as well as their US citizenship. I fail to see how something this simple completely escapes those in black-robes who “think they know better”.
So, the founding fathers sought to best assure the integrity and allegiance of a presidential candidate using the common-sense answer to the following common-sense question: A child born in the US of two US citizens forms a birth allegiance to the US and what other country? Answer: None.
That later courts have ginned up a non-common-sense alternate definition of NBC does not in any way remove the risk the founding fathers clearly sought to avoid.
Like I said, the courts can define terms that defy common sense. They can say that Obama has no birth allegiance to Kenya *legally* and that’s fine. But that does not address the dangers the founders wished to avoid. The founding fathers wanted to avoid, “matters of the heart” (IIRC) — emotional allegiances formed at birth — that might cloud or affect presidential decisions. A legal definition may stop some civil or criminal action, but it does nothing to address emotional bonds. Yet again: common sense, in spite of any legalistic, court ruling that defies it.
Like Wickard v. Fillburn which ruled that a farmer growing crops for his own use affects commerce between the states because he won’t need to purchase any, the mental gymnastics required to arrive at that decision, and the presidential eligibility decision are (imho) quite similar. Only an over-educated, hyper-rhetorical, legalistic mind could fool itself into jumping through those hoops.
To allow yourself the intellectual dishonesty needed to willingly accept either of those decisions (and countless similar others) in now way makes them correct. They are erroneous based on simple common-sense and we have no feasible recourse to correct it. There are too many apathetic, complacent citizens who accept that the courts are infallible and are a superior, rather than co-equal, branch of govt.
I can’t state it any clearer. All I can do is try to explain the common-sense point of view to someone. If I fail to communicate it clear enough, then that’s all I can do. I can’t “understand” it for them too.
“The US does not have sole claim to those kids and those kids can (and do) eagerly claim their foreign citizenship as well as their US citizenship. I fail to see how something this simple completely escapes those in black-robes who “think they know better”
“Under the sovereignty” doesn’t mean sole claim. If that were true, a US citizen couldn’t have a second citizenship. It means under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. Every tourist, businessman and illegal alien who’s here from another country is under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the US while he’s here.