“I live in the USA. I am married. I have two kids. Can my children grow up to be President?”
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Also, if you read the link to the Lynch case, the judge gives a detailed review of the law concerning natural born subjects and natural born citizens, and concludes:
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
The dissent in WKA complained:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Since NBC is the American form of NBS, and since a NBS could have two alien parents just passing thru, then it seems obvious the original intent of the Founders is yes, if you kids were born in the USA, they could grow up to become President.
Also, if you read the link to the Lynch case, the judge gives a detailed review of the law concerning natural born subjects and natural born citizens, and concludes:
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
Not even CLOSE to a "conclusion".
Did you notice that Lynch v. Clarke which you quote goes on for pages and pages and pages past that? Your quote is from p. 246.
Here are some other quotes from your OWN article...
which you conspicuously left OUT.
(p. 248)
“The inconsistency of holding that Julia Lynch is a citizen here, when it is conceded on all hands that by reason of her parents being British subjects she is also a British subject; was strongly urged. The inconsistency, however, IS nothing but the occurrence of a double allegiance, which exists in the tens of thousands of our naturalized citizens, who were once subjects of the crown of Great Britain. We recognize its existence, because we adopt them as citizens, with full knowledge that by the law of their native country, they never can put off the allegiance which they owe to its government. “
Hmmm, there's that dual-allegiance idea, right in your own pet case. Which is by definition relevant to the Presidency.
(p. 249)
“In this state, naturalized citizens are eligible to every public office, except that of governor. In most of the states, laws have been enacted to give aliens all or most of the rights of citizens, in respect of ,the acquiring, holding and transmission of property; and I believe in all of the states, there are frequent instances of such laws for the benefit of particular aliens and classes of aliens; while in several of them, the disability to inherit lands is entirely done away.”
The Lynch case concerned property rights, not eligibility for the Presidency...and running for political office is a privilege, not a right. (One is not "eligible" for redress of petitions, or free speech.)
(p. 255)
“I do not find that the rule derived from the public law, is so clearly in favor of the complainant, as was contended by him. Mr. Justice Story, who is familiar with the Continental writers upon public law, says ‘that certain principles (relative to national domicil) have been generally recognized by tribunals administering the public law or the law of nations, as of unquestionable authority. First; Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents, who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”
(Story’s "Conflict of Law” 47, § 48.)
Recall that Barack’s dad was an Records: Obama’s father forced out of Harvard">illegal alien, subject to deportation who went back to Kenya, after Harvard and the govt. forced him to leave.
Game, Set, Match.
(I'm losing all respect whatsoever for Harvard, by the way.)
But wait...there’s MORE:
(p. 257)
“In 4 Dane’s Abridgement, 701, ch. 131 ; art. 2, § 8, he says: ‘And now, if an American citizen goes abroad and marries an alien wife, and have a child by her in a foreign country, that child is not alien, but may inherit his estate in the United States. But if an American woman, a citizen, go abroad and marry an alien husband, and have a child by him so born, that child is an alien, and cannot inherit her estate in the United States. And upon the same principle, if an English subject comes into the United States, and marries an American wife, and has a child by her *born here, it cannot inherit her estate here, because this child follows the allegiance of its father, and may inherit his estate in England.”* Manifestly a non sequitur, because in the case first put, the child, if born in England of an American father, unquestionably owes allegiance in England, is a subject of that country, and may inherit there. Yet he is, as the author says, a citizen of the United States also. And by the same rule, the child born here of the English father, is a citizen here, and may inherit here as well as in England. In short, both are cases of that double allegiance, which is effected by the rule of the common law, and which Mr. Reeves says is not a novelty, nor peculiar to that law.
See -- the problem is double-allegiance, which even YOUR source acknowledges. And Lynch doesn't settle that, it is a property rights case.
Nice try though, troll.
(And yes, I know your signup date. Who did you buy the account name from?)
Cheers!