This argument annoys me because, yes, I see the S. However, the real quote has the word ‘children’, also plural. Technically, if I was a lawyer, I would argue that when we are talking about one child, and make that singular, we could go through the whole sentence and make it singular. “Child of a citizen parent.” Will we ever agree on that, nope. No point in arguing any further.
And isn’t that quote Vattel, anyway? Was he considered a founder? Yeah, didn’t think so. He was just one of the sources that was read and discussed when the founders drafted the constitution. Not the only source, and he wasn’t even translated into English until after the Constitution was written. I have read many interpretations from the French, and there is still a little fuzziness. When Vattel was translated into English, this was the wording that was used.
There is a lot a lawyer could do to argue against this exact interpretation.
Anyway, I am off to bed, so if I don’t froth back with another reply, don’t write me off as a coward, just someone with a miserable cold who took some benedryl.
“This argument annoys me because, yes, I see the S. However, the real quote has the word ‘children’, also plural. Technically, if I was a lawyer, I would argue that when we are talking about one child, and make that singular, we could go through the whole sentence and make it singular. “Child of a citizen parent.” Will we ever agree on that, nope.”
You arguement is rather foolish when you look at the original quote, and find that the word “children” was never used in the first place, and secondly, a child can not be the offspring of only one parent-Unless you are one of those that chooses to believe that Barry Soetoro is really the Messiah.
“Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”