Replies

Lest I remind you that Supreme Court opinions do NOT change the law and they are not set in concrete. The laws on the books well after WKA are a testament to that. It wasn't until after 1936 that dual citizenship was even a possibility, but then again, it wasn't adopted as law either. Children still followed the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock. Thus, it wasn't jus soli that was definitive in defining citizenship at birth, it was jus sanguinis and it is easily available for consumption at the US Library of Congress.

I understand this concept is hard for those of you to understand, but just because some words were changed in Title 8, that is available to read online, without actual legislation being passed does not make it law.

Ramsay was a member of the constitutional convention as well as a signer of the constitution and his dissertation is more credible to the intent of the framers than some rogue justice(appointed by the only other usurper) who ignored his own ruling, in the landmark case of Elk v Wilkins that held the civil rights act & the 14th Amendment to be constitutional, for some progressive political agenda.

And let's not forget Grey's later decisions that led to great monetary gain. Decisions that have since been overturned.

Lest I remind you that Supreme Court opinions do NOT change the law and they are not set in concrete.

I fully recognize that; I would also remind you that - in absence of a definition or concrete guidance by a majority of the founders of the United States - we only have the legal system to rely upon.

For example, the ONLY statute that ever existed that defined a natural born citizen said that it was the case for children born abroad of two US citizens! And that law - passed in 1790 - was superseded in 1795 and removed. Clearly the founders (still the majority of Congress in 1790) deemed that natural born citizenship extended to a definition outside of Vattel, given the lack of location required to be a natural born citizen.

And that includes Ramsay.

Thus again, we get to the crux of the matter: what legal definition exists in the US Constitution, statutes, or settled law that defines what a natural born citizen is? Without that, at best you can argue it needs to be better defined but not that a person is excluded based upon a personal opinion. Lacking a legal definition to the contrary, I don't see how Ark does not hold sway.