Partus sequitur ventrem was also used in the South specifically to ensure that the children of slaves were born slaves.
That is one of the main reasons that particular theory fell out of favor.
Yes, I am aware of what it was used for, but I am not arguing that the law for free people was Partus Sequitur Ventrem, I am arguing that it was Partus Sequitur Patrem.
Poking around the internet today, I may have very well found some more proof of this. I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but I think i've found a good lead.
While I am at it, I will direct your attention to Mackenzie v Hare. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage to a Foreigner expatriated an American Woman.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915)
Argued November 11, 12, 1915
Decided December 6, 1915
Marriage of an American woman with a foreigner is tantamount to voluntary expatriation, and Congress may, without exceeding its powers, make it so, as it has in fact done, by the Act of March 2, 1907.165 Cal. 776 affirmed.
“The statute which the Court there sustained did not divest Mrs. Mackenzie of her citizenship. [n19] It provided that “any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.” [n20] “At the termination [p70] of the marital relation,” the statute continues, “she may resume her American citizenship. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Her citizenship was not taken away; it was held in abeyance.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0356_0044_ZD.html
Interesting semantics there - “Her citizenship was not taken away.”
It is clear that birthright citizenship could not be taken away by legislation.
So what’s your point? It is not the law now. It was not the law when Obama was born. Laws change.
But surely you are not arguing that today citizenship is past only through the father? Nor when Obama was born?
What was the role of Partus Sequitur Patrem in 1960 in regards to citizenship?