[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

I see you insist on partying like it's 1867. But, in 1868 we ratified the 14th Amendment and the father's citizenship could no longer be the sole determinative factor for jus sanguinis. The mother's became equally determinative. Sorry, but your party has been over for 148 years.

What's bizarre about Valentine's argument is that no originalist, not even the conservative constitutional scholar Rob Natelson, prodigious author and frequently cited by the US Supreme Court, makes such an argument or such a haughty declaration.

Valentine thinks himself a constitutional scholar and claims that the idea that the 14th amendment giving women the ability to pass on natural born status is common knowledge or something for "148" years!

As for the 14th amendment, women were already citizens of the United States. The 14th amendment didn't even give them the right to vote. It only provides for equal "protection" under the law. If it is as Valentine says, then there should never have been a need for the 19th amendment. If protection means "treated the same way as men," this should have been the case. If women did not even receive the right to vote from the 14th amendment, then it's impossible to claim that it changed the definition of natural born citizen.

[MamaTexan]

then there should never have been a need for the 19th amendment. If protection means "treated the same way as men," this should have been the case. If women did not even receive the right to vote from the 14th amendment, then it's impossible to claim that it changed the definition of natural born citizen.

Well - now your just making too much sense. :-)

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

You guys nailed it. 14th amendment does not apply.

Sorry Prince, but ‘We’re gonna party like it’s 1799!’