“May sound harsh, but the children of slaves would bear too great an animus to the nation which enslaved their parents.”
What you reason to be sufficient grounds for assumed loyalty is not the same as what’s in the law. I’m sick of these tired arguments. “Obviously,” you might say, “anchor babies and the children of legal aliens alike can’t be relied upon to be loyal.” And just as obviously, I guess, “Grandchild[ren] would be fine.” I’m glad it’s so easy for you to predict who would and would not be loyal, but what on earth does that have to do with the law? Nothing.
Well, that’s part of rationale for De Vattel’s construction of “natural born” — the presumption of loyalty of those born in nation to those who are citizens, and the presumption of some animus, divided loyalty or even animosity of those whose parents were not citizens. In the case of black slaves, admittedly, it’s a not a bright line call. Were they really citizens prior to the 14th, or not? Dredd Scott — never reversed — says they were even fully HUMAN. A terrible ruling. It should be reversed by Court declaration.
Yet among many other deficiencies of the 14th is that it did not clarify the citizenship status pf black slaves before the 14th was enacted.
“’m glad it’s so easy for you to predict who would and would not be loyal, but what on earth does that have to do with the law? Nothing.”
Good point.
Folks, read and ponder this: We correctly abhor when liberal judicial activists put their own views into the law, and twist the law to get to an end they desire. But by twisting the 14th amendment and the laws to NOT say what it obviously does, and making up our own ‘rules’ about what eligibilty *should* be instead of what it *is*, those arguing against Presidential eligibility for ALL who are born US citizens are doing the same thing. They are putting their own biases and preferences ahead of what the law says.
Lets not do that. The law is clear: Anyone who is born here is a citizen from birth and thus ‘natural-born citizen’.