Replies

I don’t think the founders would have necessarily thought that babies born in the US to non-US parents wouldn’t have been US citizens with the right to run for president. I understand that this is not good when we have groups of illegals coming over here to get freebies, but, I do not think they would have said, “John and Mary came from England in the year 1800 and had a baby as soon as she stepped off of the boat, but that baby won’t be eligible to run for president in 35 years because his parents were not born in the US prior to the Revolution, and were not yet US citizens at the time of the birth.” This train of thought can’t rule out some ethnic groups, but not others.
America was founded by immigrants, and I don’t think the founders thought excluding any group who was living in the US should be excluded from being part of the government.
As neither of us can go and talk to the founding fathers of this country and as for sure what they meant, we really can’t be 100% sure what they meant.

I think you can find almost anything about what our founding fathers would have thought. They were all tremondous writers and wrote volumes...their letters to each other and spouses gives quite an insight into what you might be curious to know. I love Wallbuilders and David Barton for their keeping the light on the issues the founders spoke of while they struggled to build a free nation.

Your thoughts are not what is important. The men who wrote the Constitution are the ones whose thoughts are important. There is so much reserached and document info about this very topic on FR that you should avail yourself of this info - there are links on this thread you could click.

You have a major problem with constructing valid analogies: "“John and Mary came from England in the year 1800 and had a baby as soon as she stepped off of the boat, but that baby won’t be eligible to run for president in 35 years because his parents were not born in the US prior to the Revolution ('prior to the revolution' is a strawman because of the exception clause the Founders wrote into the Constitution), and were not yet US citizens at the time of the birth (prior to the Revolution, there were NO U.S. Citizens).”

You've run yourself around after your own assumption, trying to prove your assumption, and made errors in your reasoning. The definition of Natural Born Citizen was well established in the latter part of the eighteenth century, that's why the founders used the term without defining it, kind of like 'arms' in the 'keep and bear arms' part. You want an anchor baby to be more than just a citizen, and there are agitprops working FR who also assume that which they set out to prove, that just being a non-naturalized citizen qualifies under modern interpretation of the Constitution. Have fun with your tail chasing.

I don’t think the founders would have necessarily thought that babies born in the US to non-US parents wouldn’t have been US citizens with the right to run for president.

See my post #299, first. Children of non-US citizens [specifically, the father] would not qualify IF the father's country laid claim to the child as it's own citizen.

Now, as for your son ...

Since the Supreme Court has conveniently avoided the question of NBC for 223 years, we have to look to the Founders and what their interpretation would have been.

You have to remember that the lawyers amongst the Founders were trained in British Law, practiced British Law, and agreed with MOST of British Law [with notable exceptions].

I have made a cursory examination of Dicey's Conflict of Laws and have found a citation. Remember, this was written in 1896 - and I will have to get back to you on this. I will try to find the applicable law from the 1700's - so don't get your panties in a wad about what I am about to write:

Rule 24

Sub-rule. British nationality is not inherited through women.

If this was the law in the 1700's your son would probably not qualify - but, like I said, I still have to research this ...