Replies

When that “utter crap of no legal value” is repeatedly upheld in courts across the country, will you perhaps entertain the notion that you are wrong? Or do you really feel you understand the issue better than all those judges?

I absolutely understand this issue better than most Judges. I defy a one of them to demonstrate the working knowledge which I have accumulated regarding this issue. All THEY know how to do is tell me what they think some other judge thought about something the founders meant. Third hand opinion is all they are good for.

In order to correctly understand what is the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" you must SKIP OVER what is legal opinion, and go straight to the era in question and Learn what The Founders said, read, thought and acted.

THAT is where the truth lies. Not in reading the third hand opinion of some lawyer misapplying a precedent not even dealing with the issue.

YOUR understanding creates "anchor babies" as "natural born citizens" able to be President, and requires Exceptions for three glaringly obvious examples which do not fit your rule. You must have an exception for Slaves, (Changed in 1868) You must have an exception for Indians (Changed in 1924) and You must have an exception for Diplomats. (Still an exception.)

The CORRECT understanding of the term "natural born citizen" under the jus sanguinus principles requires no exceptions in any of the above cases, and does NOT create "anchor babies."

Now who is the fool here? The one who thinks our laws are supposed to create these obvious absurdities, or the one who thinks the founders were not morons?

Since you are so infatuated with what courts have to say about this issue, Here is a court case (ex parte reynolds, 1879) for you to review while pondering why your belief yields such ridiculous results.

The Universal Maxim of the Common Law being Partus Sequitur Patrem...

Partus sequitur patrem: the offspring follows the father; the condition of the father.
Partus sequitur ventrem: the offspring follows the mother.

You snip starts with the sentence “no other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country.”

What are those rules you apparently don’t think are important?

Do you understand why Vattel was applied in this case? Because it dealt with International Law (ie law of nations). Indians were considered foreign citizens of sovereign nations.

You are conflating a ruling on Indian citizenship to American citizenship in general.

Besides, the court rejected the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in Sloan v U.S.