Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy Cannot Be President

Not comparing their evil, but what in his early life made anyone think Adolf Hitler would rise up and instigate a World War that would end up killing millions of people.

He was a corporal in WW I, he failed at everything after the war, but somehow managed to lead a political revolution all because he could rally people to his side, and he was ruthless enough to take out all his main rivals.

I’m sure many considered Hitler a moron, who was also an untalented f@ggot drug abuser who just happened to be able to give a great speech and millions fell in love with him.

People underestimated him and never took him seriously until it was to late.

Your personal animosity toward Obama skews your opinions of him.

What, do you think if a foreign government sent a draft notice to an American citizen that the notice would burst into flames or something?

I think the American government would intercede on their behalf, and knowing this, a foreign government wouldn't even try it.

But this does not apply to one of theirs that did not naturalize in the US.

Your personal animosity toward Obama skews your opinions of him.

Learning about his life before he became a Senator in Illinois informs my opinion of him.

He was a total failure at the Woods foundation. The housing projects he "managed" were never worse off than during the period he was managing them.

You name something he did successfully before he started receiving national attention. Anything. Just name an Obama success story.

“knowing this, a foreign government wouldn’t even try it.”

But you didn’t ask if they would, you asked if they could, which is a different thing. Nations are sovereign, which means they can pretty much do whatever they want. Whether they choose to do certain things that would provoke a response from a more powerful nation is a different matter.

“But this does not apply to one of theirs that did not naturalize in the US.”

So what is the real point you are trying to get at? Do you think that the ability or inability to draft someone is evidence if they are “under the jurisdiction” of a nation?

His success or failure before he became a full time politician means absolutely nothing, he was very successful at one thing getting elected to public office, so successful he got elected POTUS twice

You animosity towards him keeps you from seeing the obvious

As previously mentioned, if you drag up any source prior to the 14th Amendment, anything inconsistent with the 14th Amendment is struck down by the provision of the Constitution. This is true even if your source is a nineteenth century county judge from Pennsylvania.

When faced with knowledge that you misrepresented your source, and that your source was a county judge who erroneously added the inapplicable 7 Anne c. 5, and that you had displayed a page as authority which pertained to the inapplicable 7 Anne c. 5., you chose to continue your insane rants about the irrelevant.

7 Anne c. 5, An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, never applied to naturalization in the British colonies in America. The judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not list this in their Report for very good reason.

A still better reason not to cite 7 Anne c. 5 as authority for United States citizenship law is that it was repealed as British law by 10 Anne, c.5 in 1711, 65 years before the Declaration of Independence.

7 Anne c. 5. as it appears in Statutes of the Realm notes that it was repealed by 10 Anne c. 5. three years after it was enacted.

https://ia903204.us.archive.org/3/items/statutesatlargef04grea/statutesatlargef04grea.pdf

Statutes of the Realm, vol. 4, 7 Anne c.5 (1708) (at pp. 339-340)

23 March 1709

CAP. V.
An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants.
Whereas the Increase of People is a Means of advancing the Wealth and Strength of a Nation; and whereas many Strangers of the Protestant or reformed Religion out of a due Consideration of the happy Constitution of the Government of this Realm, would be induced to transport themselves and their Estates into this Kingdom, if they thought they might be made Partakers of the Advantages and Privileges which the natural-born Subjects thereof do enjoy; Be it enacted &c.
All persons taking the Oaths, and making and subscribing the Declaration by 6 Anne, c. 23, shall be deemed natural-born Subjects. No Person to have the Benefit of the Act, unless he have received the sacrament, &c.
III. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid That the Children of all natural-born Subjects born out of the Ligeance of her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural-born subjects of this Kingdom, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatever.
IV. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all Persons born out of the Legiance of her Majesty, her Heirs or successors, who shall qualify themselves in the Courts of Chancery, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, within the Kingdom of Ireland, or at some General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held for the County where he or they do or shall inhabit, reside, or settle within the Kingdom, in like Manner as Persons are by this Act required to do within the Kingdom of Great Britain, all and every such Persons shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be her Majesty's natural-born Subjects of the Kingdom of Ireland, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes, as if they, and every of them, had been, or were born within the said Kingdom of Ireland.
[Repealed by 10 Anne, c.5. Except what relates to the Children of her Majesty's natural-born Subjects, born out of her Majesty's Allegiance. Vide 1 Geo. 1, Stat. 2, c. c. 29.]

https://ia903204.us.archive.org/3/items/statutesatlargef04grea/statutesatlargef04grea.pdf

Statutes of the Realm, vol. 4, 10 Anne c.5 (1711) (at pp. 512-513)

9 February 1712

An Act to repeal the Act of the Seventh Year of Her Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, except what relates to the Children of Her Majesty's Natural-born Subjects, born out of Her Majesty's Allegiance.
Whereas an Act of Parliament was made and passed in the seventh Year of her Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants; and whereas divers Michiefs and Inconveniences have been found by experience to follow from the same, in the Discouragement of the natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom, and to the Detriment of the Trade and Wealth thereof, Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the before mentioned Act, and all the matters and Things therein contained (except so much of the said Act by which the Children of all natural born Subjects of this Kingdom) shall be and is hereby repealed, annulled, and made void, to all Intents and Purposes whatrsoever, provided nevertheless, That such Repeal shall not in any sort prejudice or impeach the Naturalization of any persons who have been or shall be naturalizedat any Time before the fourth Day of February which shall be in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eleven, pursuant to the Directions of the before mentioned Act. 4 Geo. 2, c. 21, which explains the Clause in 7 Anne c. 5.

- - - - -

When you show me the book of the 1818 Supreme court of Pennsylvania saying "No! That's not what we believe at all!"
Then I will take your commentary on this point seriously.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did not issue the Report of the Judges in 1808. It was issued by a group judges of the Pennsylavania Supreme Court.

When you show where the Report of the Judges in 1808 said anything whatever about the irrelevant 7 Anne ch. 5. your blather can be taken seriously.

The text of 7 Anne ch. 5 makes clear you had no clue what you were talking about.

A book published by an obscure county judge does not require a response by the state Supreme Court. The Report of the Judges decided nothing. Upon request, the judges made recommendations to the Legislature for that body to act on as it chose.

You chose to dimwittedly present an irrelevant bit of twaddle presented by a county judge, and tried to attribute said irrelevant twaddle to four judges of the state supreme court.

You cannot seriously believe the man could print that part about citizenship without objections from every legal authority in the state, *UNLESS* what he wrote is true.

Your county judge published crap and you were dumb enough to repeat it and claim it as authority for U.S. citizenship law. The crap about 7 Anne ch. 5 never applied to the British colonies in America and was repealed in 1711, 65 years before the Declaration of Independence.

What the book says is true, and you just don't want to admit it.

You just do not want to admit that you showed your ass again.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/naturalizationin00will/naturalizationin00will.pdf

NATURALIZATION in the AMERICAN COLONIES

By Joseph Williard
Boston, 1859

pp. 3-5

In no country of Europe has the exclusion of foreigners been more strictly enforced than in England; so that, until a recent period, no one could become a British subject except by a special Act of Parliament. In addition to the reasons given above, the pride of the Anglo-Saxon race, which hardly permits an Englishman to look on his Continental neighbor as an equal, would lead him to regard with dread any encroachment upon a population that had become homogeneous in the progress of centuries,—a dread that would not be diminished by the narrow channel that divides him from other races.
But, while she guarded the sea-girt isle with this extreme jealousy, she was, as will be seen in the context, more liberal towards her Colonies after they began to acquire assured strength; that is to say, more liberal as regarded foreign Protestants, while wholly excluding the Roman Catholic from every privilege of a subject.
The first relaxation of the ancient restriction took place in 1708, under statute 7 Anne, chap. 5, entitled "An act for NATURALIZING FOREIGN PROTESTANTS." The preamble states the plain proposition, that "the increase of a people is a means of advancing the wealth and strength of a nation;" and adds, that "many strangers of the Protestant or Reformed religion, out of a due consideration of the happy constitution of the government of this realm, would be induced to transport themselves and their estates into this kingdom, if they might be made partakers of the advantages and privileges which the natural-born subjects thereof do enjoy." It is then enacted, that all persons taking the oaths, and making and subscribing the declaration appointed by statute 6 Anne, chap. 23, and having received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in some Protestant congregation within three months, shall be deemed natural-born subjects.
This law did not extend to the Colonies, and did not find favor at home. Parliament soon relapsed into the old "stringent doctrine of the common law, and in 1711, after an experiment of three years, repealed the statute of 7 Anne, because, according to the preamble, "divers mischiefs and inconveniences have been found by experience to follow from the same, to the discouragement of the natural-born subjects of this kingdom, and to the detriment of the trade and wealth thereof." The "discouragement and detriment" may have been more in seeming than in fact; but so it was, that this exclusion of foreigners remained as of old in the mother country until the present reign.

As for the steaming piece of crap you presented by a county judge:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/4178913/posts?page=181#181

A digest of select British statutes: comprising those which, according to the report of the judges of the Supreme Court made to the legislature, appear to be in force, in Pennsylvania, with some others, with notes and illustrations.

by Roberts, Samuel, 1763-1820

| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |

Your #181 presented page 26 of the Roberts book. The chapter title under which page 26 falls is on page 22—7 Anne c. 5.

At the previously provided page 26:

"The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of their parents; however, te naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children."

This would likely disown the citizenship of half of all United States citizens. The children of aliens born in the United States were considered natural born citizens and they were neither eligible for naturalization, nor were they naturalized. According to County Judge Roberts, they and all their descendents are not citizens.

Senate Debate on Civil Rights Act of 1866 authored by Sen. Trumbull

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=603

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Mr. COWAN. I think not.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 698

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form (less the words "or naturalized"), and reading,
"All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State herein they reside."
Mr. Cowan objected upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded, and said:
"Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit."
Mr. Conness, of California, replied:
"The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of [169 U. S. 699] the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

149 U. S. 716.

The Convention between the United States and China of 1894 provided that
"Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently or temporarily residing in the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens."
28 Stat. 111. And it has since been decided, by the same judge who held this appellee to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth therein, that a native of China of the Mongolian race could not be admitted to citizenship under the naturalization laws. In re Gee Hop (1895), 71 Fed.Rep. 274.
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 two only: 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 the circumstances defined 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.

149 U.S. 704

VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.

Wong Kim Ark acquired citizenship by birth while being born to two Chinese aliens, neither of whom was eligible for naturalization.

Furthermore, no law by man overrides the law of God. The 14th amendment is nothing but a *NATURALIZATION* law. That's it. That's all.

You are delusional.

14A "All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

That does not pertain to naturalization, despite our crackpot nonsense.

False. He’s a dual citizen by statute.

One who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth is a natural born citizen of the USA. He or she may acquire additional citizenship under the laws of one or more other nations. That is irrelevant and has no bearing on their U.S. citizenship.

If the laws of foreign nations determined U.S. presidential eligibility, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick could declare by its law that all persons born in the U.S., except for full blooded Cherokee Indians, were natural born citizens of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. This would disqualify all but full-blooded Cherokee Indians from the Presidency. Israel could grant natural born citizenship to all U.S. born non-Jews. Only Jews would be eligible for the Presidency.

Laws of foreign nations do not determine Presidential eligibility. All persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the United States.

The Congress issued a ruling about John McCain being a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama because his parents were stationed there.

No, the Congress did not issue a ruling.

“No, the Congress did not issue a ruling.”

Well, listen to you. Congress did indeed issue a statement, which in their world, is a ruling. And that statement ratified what was generally understood about natural born citizenship for hundreds of years in the United States.

Now, go off somewhere and split hairs with someone else.

I think the American government would intercede on their behalf, and knowing this, a foreign government wouldn't even try it.
But this does not apply to one of theirs that did not naturalize in the US.

Wrong. If a foreign nation claims one as its citizen, they have every right to force their citizen into compulsory military service if he comes within their jurisdiction.

Some countries have mandatory military service. If an American claims citizenship in such a country and goes there to visit, he may wind up doing his required military service. An American dual national, when in the second country, is subject to the laws of that nation, including the draft or mandatory military service.

Foreign nationals resident in the United States are subject to our draft, when we have one.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924079575241&view=1up&seq=381

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)

Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES.

MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862.
Honorable E. M. STANTON:
About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them.
E. SALOMON,
Governor of Wisconsin.
- - - - - - - - - -
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington City, D. C., August 12, 1862.
Governor SALOMON,
Madison, Wis.:
Foreigners who have voted at our elections are regarded as having exercised a franchise that subjects them to military duty. Declaration of intention to become naturalized is not of itself sufficient to prevent their taking advantage of their alienage, but a man who votes must bear arms. Your telegram respecting extension of time for volunteering cannot be answered until to-morrow, some information from different States being required.
EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845

It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.
[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

31 CFR § 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.
[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003; 80 FR 2292, Jan. 16, 2015; 81 FR 13991, Mar. 16, 2016]
- - - - -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330
§ 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;
(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
[28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]

woodpusher: "No, the Congress did not issue a ruling."

odawg: Well, listen to you. Congress did indeed issue a statement, which in their world, is a ruling. And that statement ratified what was generally understood about natural born citizenship for hundreds of years in the United States.

Rulings are issued by judicial courts.

What the 110th Congress (or rather, the Senate) issued with unanimous consent was a nonbinding resolution: S.Res.511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

In other words, the Senate simply made its opinion known as regarded the citizenship of John McCain, which had no legislative force in and of itself. To call it a "ruling" is to grant it force and power it cannot have by nature.

“In other words, the Senate simply made its opinion known as regarded the citizenship of John McCain, which had no legislative force in and of itself. To call it a “ruling” is to grant it force and power it cannot have by nature.”

I cannot damn believe it. I was tired, in a hurry, and chose the wrong word.

My point was, and still is, that the Senate did what it did about McCain due to the understanding of the natural born citizenship clause in the Constitution as a requirement for being President — someone born of citizen parents.

At the time, no one was disputing that McCain was a citizen, the dispute was about whether he was a natural born citizen as mentioned in the Constitution.

The Senate affirmed, or spoke, or agreed, whatever the hell it did, that McCain was a natural born citizen of the United States. I personally could not stand McCain, but since his parents were American citizens, and in the military where they were commanded to go, and McCain happened to be born offshore, certainly he was a natural born citizen.

Whether it had legal force is TOTALLY beside the point. The POINT is that the Senate, at that short time ago, knew what natural born meant in the Constitution — a person born of citizen parents. The parents have to be citizens of the country; could be native born, could be naturalized, but have to be citizens.

Well, listen to you. Congress did indeed issue a statement, which in their world, is a ruling.

And that is another false statement. Congress issued no statement. Congress is incompetent to issue a ruling on the matter.

Now, go off somewhere and split hairs with someone else.

Find and post your fictional statement/ruling by Congress.

And that statement ratified what was generally understood about natural born citizenship for hundreds of years in the United States.

Aside from your statement/ruling of Congress being imaginary, the Resolution of the Senate was a pile of hot air.

The Senate has no such power, and your statement is false. Natural born citizenship has always been acquired in one of two ways. Birth in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction is the primary way. Birth outside the United States while meeting all the terms and conditions of the Federal statute applicable at the time of birth is the other way. Obtaining a Resolution from the Senate is not a recognized way. For some reason the Resolution of the Senate says nothing of the applicable Federal law.

https://www.congress.gov/110/bills/sres511/BILLS-110sres511ats.pdf

110TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
APRIL 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY , without amendment
APRIL 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to
_______________________
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;
Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born Citizen”;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are easy to agree with, but establish nothing. There is no evidence that somebody's interpretation of the intentions of the Framers was ratified. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

Paragraph 4 is irrelevant. It refers to the statute of 1790 rather than the statute applicable to the birth of John McCain. It does so to avoid what was wrong with the statute in effect in 1936.

Paragraph 5 says nothing relevant.

Paragraph 6 refers to other candidates born under different circumstances than being born in Panama under the law effective in 1936. It says nothing specific to John McCain.

Paragraph 7 says John McCain was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.

That's not a hair being split. That is deliberately misleading the American people.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_4

8 FAM 301.1-3 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF "IN THE UNITED STATES"

c. Birth on U.S. military base outside of the United States or birth on U.S. embassy or consulate premises abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth;

FAM is the Foreign Affairs Manual for the State Department. They are the ones who actually do make determinations of citizenship for births abroad. Birth on a military installation is irrelevant.

John McCain said in his autobiography he was born in the U.S. Naval Hospital on the Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain was not born in 1936 in a hospital that opened in 1942. Nor was he born in an imaginary hospital on the nearby submarine base. Canal Zone records do not reflect the birth of John McCain. McCain never publicly produced a birth certificate.

Most likely he was born in the hospital just outside the base gate in Colon, Panama. But that would clash with the autobiography, the fake story pushed for decades.

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/hr_751303.pdf

House of Representatives
75th Congress, 1st Session
Report No. 1303
CITIZENSHIP OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE OR REPUBLIC OF PANAMA
[...]
Frances Perkins
Department of Labor
Office of the Secretary
March 2, 1937
[...]
Owing to the view that the Canal Zone is not an incorporated territory of the United States, hence not "a part of" or "in" the United States, there is doubt that any of the persons described in the bill are citizens of the United States under the Constitution or any existing statutes even though the Canal Zone is under the jurisdiction of the United States. For the same reason it is doubtful that children born in the Republic of Panama are citizens though their parents are employed by the Government of the United States. Yet they owe allegiance to the United States and are citizens in every sense except as a matter of law.

Inside the Canal Zone was within the jurisdiction of the United States, but outside its territory. The Zone was the sovereign territory of Panama. Outside the Zone was outside the territory and outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and was covered by the applicable statute. The statute in effect in 1936 applied to all born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. It was a collosal congressional screwup, and the law is what Congress actually wrote, not what they intended. Until the statute was amended in 1937, births in the Zone fell under neither 14A nor the statute. A new statute retroactively granted U.S. citizenship to those born under the defective statute. And so McCain retroactively became a citizen when he was eleven months old.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep366308/

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 311-312 (1961)

Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 309-315.
(a) R. S. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who "now are, or have been," citizens, applies only to children whose parents were citizens on or before April 14, 1802, when its predecessor became effective. When petitioner was born in 1906, R. S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship for foreign-born children, and it applied only to children whose fathers were citizens. Pp. 309-312.
[...]
In 1854, Horace Binney, one of the country's leading lawyers and a recognized authority on the immigration laws, published an article entitled "The Alienigenae of the United States" in which he argued that the words "who now are, or have been" in the 1802 predecessor of R.S. § 2172 had the effect of granting citizenship to the foreign-born children only of persons who were citizens of the United States on or before the effective date of the 1802 statute (April 14, 1802), in other words, that the statute had no prospective application. Foreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens, Mr. Binney argued. In 1855, Congress responded to the situation by enacting the predecessor (10 Stat. 604) of R.S. § 1993. The provision had retroactive, as well as prospective, effect, but was clearly intended to apply only to children of citizen fathers.

“Aside from your statement/ruling of Congress being imaginary, the Resolution of the Senate was a pile of hot air.”

You must be dumb as a box of rocks.

I said in my post that it doesn’t matter if it is toothless. I just don’t care. I don’t depend on that statement. Can you comprehend what I am saying? I do not give a damn about that statement. Don’t tell me again it is non-binding. I know that. I don’t care. It is beside the point.

The idea of what a natural born citizen does not hinge at all upon what the Senate said or will say. The Congress cannot amend the Constitution.

What matters is that they felt the need to declare John McCain eligible for office, because of the historical understanding of the term “natural born citizen.”

Now, look me straight in the eyes and hear again what I said — The point is not that the statement has no legal or otherwise power. Again, I care not at all. That was not my point. My point is that they felt the need to address the natural born citizenship clause in the Constitution.

Now, the fact that the Constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is, is irrelevant and deceptive by the Senate. The Constitution does not define ANY of its terms. The writers used legal terminology extant at that time and all of it is still in use today. That does not make what is in contained therein have no meaning whatsoever.

The fact that the writers listed only three qualifications for the most most important individual office in the land means they meant something about their three points. In that day, and all through history, everyone knew what a natural born citizen is. It was defined precisely in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

I was taught all through school and college the meaning of the term.

Posters on this site who know much more about it than I do have given legal documentation for it from early on in our history.

My point was, and still is, that the Senate did what it did about McCain due to the understanding of the natural born citizenship clause in the Constitution as a requirement for being President — someone born of citizen parents.

False. Absolutely false.

Presidential qualifications say not a mumbling word about the citizenship of a President's parents.

A natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

Congressional Research Service Report

Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
November 14, 2011

[excerpt]

Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION

c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

- - - - -

At the time, no one was disputing that McCain was a citizen.

Nonsense.

Gabriel Chin, Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 1 (2008).

Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr_fi/vol107/iss1/23

Gabriel Chin was Professor of Law, Arizona State University in 2008.

Abstract
Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen. Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.

https://law.ucdavis.edu/people/gabriel-chin

Gabriel "Jack" Chin is a teacher and scholar of Immigration Law, Criminal Procedure, and Race and Law. His scholarship has appeared in the Penn, UCLA, Cornell, and Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties law reviews and the Yale, Duke and Georgetown law journals among others. The U.S. Supreme Court cited his work on collateral consequences of criminal conviction in Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1109 (2013) , in which the Court called his Cornell Law Review article “the principal scholarly article on the subject” and in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), which agreed with his contention that the Sixth Amendment required defense counsel to advise clients about potential deportation consequences of guilty pleas. Justice Sotomayor cited his Penn Law Review article in her dissent in Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2070 (2016).
He teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, and Immigration, and is Director of Clinical Legal Education. He also works with students on professional projects. His efforts with students to repeal Jim Crow laws still on the books includes a successful 2003 petition to the Ohio legislature to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, 136 years after the state disapproved it during the ratification process. He and his students also achieved the repeal of anti-Asian alien land laws which were on the books in Kansas, New Mexico and Wyoming. For this work, "A" Magazine named him one of the “25 Most Notable Asians in America.” In connection with classes with a practical component, he has tried felony cases and argued criminal appeals with his students.
Professor Chin earned a B.A. at Wesleyan, a J.D. from Michigan and an LL.M. from Yale. He clerked for U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in Denver and practiced with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and The Legal Aid Society of New York. He taught at the Arizona, Cincinnati, NYU and Western New England law schools before joining the UC Davis faculty. His professional activities include service as Reporter on the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, approved in 2009 by the Uniform Law Commission, and for the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Collateral Sanctions and Discretionary Disqualification of Convicted Persons (3d ed. 2003). Chin is a founding board member of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center and a member of the American Law Institute.

“Presidential qualifications say not a mumbling word about the citizenship of a President’s parents.”

I refer you to the Naturalization Act of 1790, adopted one year after the Constitution was adopted, directly defines natural born as being born of citizen parents.

The writers of the Constitution used the term “citizen” everywhere else except the provisions about eligibility to be President.

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is.. even those born to alien parents...”

Nonsense, don’t care what Jack Maskell says. The Naturalization Act of 1790 defines natural born as being born of citizen parents. If that were historically true, then why did the Supreme Court need to rule not too long ago that the children of illegals born in the United States were citizens?

Why do you stedfastly refuse to mention the Naturalization Act of 1790 that defines what a natural born citizen is? I know that horse is out of the barn, but it states that citizenship flows from the father only.

I refer you to the Naturalization Act of 1790, adopted one year after the Constitution was adopted, directly defines natural born as being born of citizen parents.

I invite you to 1 Stat. 222-223 (March 26, 1790), An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

If you have something to quote from it, now would be a good time, unless you just want to play a silly game of hide the ball.

[page 103]
Margin note:
Statute II.
Repealed by act of January 20, 1795, ch. 20.
Alien whites may become citizens, and how.
- - - - -
Chap. III. -- An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a)
Section I. Be it enacted byu the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon;
(a) This act was repealed by an act passed January 29, 1795, chap. 20.
The acts relating to naturalization subsequent to the act of March 28, 1790, have been: "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," January 29, 1795, chap. 20. Repealed April. 14, 1802.
An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the Subject, passed April 14, 1802, chap. 28.
An act in addition to an act entituled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the subject," passed March 26, 1804, chap. 47.
An act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization, passed March 22, 1816, chap. 32.
An act in further addition to "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," passed May 26, 1824, chap. 186.
An act to amend the acts concerning naturalization, May 24, 1828, ch. 116. Act of July 30, 1813, ch. 36.
[Page 104]
[Margin note]
Their children residing here, deemed citizens.
Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c.
Exceptions
- - - - -
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. (a)
Approved, March 26, 1790.

That does not provide a definition of natural born citizen. It provides an example of a natural born citizen. It only applies to births beyond sea, and is inapplicable to births within the United States; i.e., the vast majority of natural born citizen births. A dachshund is an example of a dog. Dachshund does not define dog. Not all dogs are dachshunds. Not all natural born citizens are born beyond sea. A child of two illegal aliens, born in a detention center in the United States, is born a United States citizen. The law of March 26, 1790 did not make anyone a citizen after January 29, 1795. If the 1790 law is seen as defining citizenship today, then citizenship of persons born beyond sea is restricted to free white persons.

For domestic births, the relevant law is the 14th Amendment, that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the United States, your personal vision of current law notwithstanding.

The Act of 1795 includes:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

The words "natural born" were eliminated. As a natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, specifying "natural born" in this context was surplusage and could be omitted without change of meaning. Everyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.

The children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States gave rise to disagreement whether that meant children of two citizen parents, or one citizen parent. That has been resolved in favor of one citizen parent.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep401815/

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 816 (1971)

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).
Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html

8 FAM 301.1-1 Introduction
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes; and
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

- - - - -

Why do you stedfastly refuse to mention the Naturalization Act of 1790 that defines what a natural born citizen is? I know that horse is out of the barn, but it states that citizenship flows from the father only.

Why do you dwell upon a statute law that was repealed 229 years ago?

“Why do you dwell upon a statute law that was repealed 229 years ago?”

Like I said, you are so dumb.

How is it possible to be so dumb?

I refer to it for one reason, and one reason only. It DEFINES what a natural born citizen is in the Constitution.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was not in effect all that long, I think.

But, it is valuable in that it DEFINES what a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS, a year after the Constitution was adopted.

That is why I refer to it. The definition of what a natural born citizen was what this thread was about, as far as I can remember. I don’t care what the Supreme Court says, what the Senate says, what some legal journalist says, it is what is meant by the writers of the Constitution and what was taught nationwide in all the schools for two centuries until Obama became president. I wonder why.

Like I said, you are so dumb. How is it possible to be so dumb?

You are sick. Seek help.

I refer to it for one reason, and one reason only. It DEFINES what a natural born citizen is in the Constitution.

I spoon fed you the entire 1790 Act from the Statutes at Large, the official source. I recommended quoting it and made that as simple as cut and paste. You couldn't do it. Why couldn't you quote the definition if it is there?

A child born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction (subject to its laws), is born a citizen. The constitution so states without reference to the parents. It does not matter if the parents are two illegal aliens awaiting deportation. All that matters is the child. Was the child born within the territory of the United States? Was the child born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If so, the child was born a citizen. If the child was born outside the United States, then it becomes a matter of federal law. No foreign law is relevant.

What the Act of 1790 says provided for the dimwitted:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:

What is the definition of natural born citizen — the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea? Are you a natural born idiot?

Assume arguendo it said "shall be considered as a horse." Would that provide a definition of a horse?

There is no definition of natural born citizen in the Act of 1790. There is an example of one who shall be considered as a natural born citizen if born overseas and conforming to certain requirements of the effective act. That Act has changed multiple times, and the specified requirements have changed repeatedly.

The 1790 Act no more defines natural born citizen than does the Constitution. The Constitution was written in the language of the English common law. English common law used the term natural born subject. In the very early days of the American republic, the terms natural born subject and natural born citizen were used interchangeably. What was meant by natural born citizen was clear enough until 2008.

The folks who wrote the 1790 Act repealed it in 1795. It is as effective as the 18th Amendment.

Let us try the Act of 1802:

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen, as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed .
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That all acts heretofore passed respecting naturalization, be, and the same are hereby repealed.
APPROVED, April 14, 1802.

And so, as of April 14, 1802, persons born overseas were considered citizens only if born of parents who were citizens on or before April 14, 1802. This was noted in a paper by Horace Binney in The American Law Register in February 1854. By that time it would seem the parents had to be near seventy years old at the time of birth, or in other words, no children born overseas were becoming citizens of the United States pursuant to the 1802 law in effect. It mattered not what they intended in 1802.

Binney:

It does not, probably, occur to the American families who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remaining there, frequently, for a year or more, that all their children born in a foreign country are Aliens, and when they return home, will return under all the disabilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case; for it is not worth while to consider the only exception to this rule that exists under the laws of the United States, viz., the case of a child so born, whose parents were citizens of the United States, on or before the 14th of April, 1802.
It has been thought expedient, therefore, to call the attention of the public to this state of the laws of the United States, that if there are not some better political reasons for permitting the law so to remain, than the writer is able to imagine, the subject may be noticed in Congress, and a remedy provided.
Chancellor Kent, in adverting to this peculiarity of our laws, in the fourth part of his Commentaries on American Law, holds out, it is true, to the children so born, the possible “resort for aid, to the dormant and doubtful principles of the common law;” for he remarks: “it is said that in every case, the children born abroad, of English parents, were capable, at common law, of inheriting as natives, if the father went abroad in the character of an Englishman, and with the approbation of his Sovereign;” and he cites three authorities for this dicitur which will be considered presently; but it is clear, from the Chancellor’s context, that he placed little reliance upon this alleged doctrine of the common law; and it can be shown that it was not worthy of the least. There is no reasonable doubt existing at this time, nor has there been in England, for nearly four hundred years, that the common law acknowledges no such principle, but, to use Lord Kenyon’s language in Doe vs. Jones, 4 Dumford and East, 308, that “the character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any of the statutes, was incidental to birth only. Whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born within the allegiance of the King, constituted a natural-born subject;” and consequently, anterior to any of the statutes, the being born out of the allegiance of the king, constituted an alien.

- - - - -

The definition of what a natural born citizen was what this thread was about, as far as I can remember. I don’t care what the Supreme Court says, what the Senate says, what some legal journalist says, it is what is meant by the writers of the Constitution and what was taught nationwide in all the schools for two centuries until Obama became president.

And you know this from your experience in grade skool for the gifted for two centuries.

Chester Arthur became Vice President, and later President in 1881. Chester Arthur was born in 1829. His father was naturalized in 1842. Numerous candidates had foreign parents. The nitwits did not come out of the closet until 2008.

To get nearer than 1790, we can go right to John Jay and George Washington at the time of the Constitutional Convention, 25 July 1787.

Say it along with John Jay. A "natural born citizen." Say it to yourself over and over, and stress the word born. Eventually it will sink in.