1. I am not the one that introduced the ‘Citizenship at Birth’ class. You did by your reference to “Rogers v. Bellei”, and then you argued against your own points.
2. You insult me by insinuating that I don’t know the meaning of my own tag-line. Then you redefine it to explicitly require “the right of expatriation, the right to hold exclusive allegiance towards one nation and one nation only, at birth...”. Natural Born Citizenship implies that right and exclusive allegiance. To require it to be stated is redundant.
3. John Jay’s letter to Washington recommends that the requirement for being POTUS should exclude any foreign influence by requiring exclusive allegiance to the U.S. as indicated in the following excerpt:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
It was after receiving this letter that the term “Natural Born Citizen” was inserted into the Constitution.
4. I have studied and read all of WKA and the quote was from a citation in the Court’s Opinion. Again, you insult me by implying that I am “too lazy to go and actually do a thorough study of the case” as well as “ignorant” because you think I claimed that “WKA introduced a new class of citizenship which I did not.
However, the citation does include this: “Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (that ‘class’ being citizen-at-birth, NOT “Natural Born Citizen”)
5. “Natural Born Citizen” was defined in the works of Vattel’s “Law of Nations...” in 1958, well before the Revolution and well established as an important legal reference in the Colonies and abroad.
6. The Declaration of Independence contains an oblique reference to the full title of Vattel’s book in using the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. So you see, the Constitution and other Founding documents along with Vattel’s “Law of Nations...” and reasonable logic and common sense is all that is required to determine the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”. No need to resort to laws, Acts, legislation, or amendments as ALL of those are man-made “naturalized citizens”.
7. No Court is likely to grant standing to anyone on this matter, regardless of your reasoning; thus it is up to massive popular demand that the proper meaning as originally intended be always applied to POTUS and electing ONLY members of Congress that will apply that meaning and deny the certification of POTUS to anyone not meeting that definition.
I am not going to play a tit for tat. The key to winning any citizenship/A2 eligibility case is the Expatriation Act and why it is critical in regards to American sovereignty & liberty.
The Rogers v. Bellei case decision hinged on this key factor of expatriation and I posted the exact parts of the SCOTUS opinion because you said that expatriation had nothing to do with the courts decision. You were wrong.
I think that pretty much takes care of this conversation, that while Vattel and all the SCOTUS cases you posted are relevant, the law the defines citizenship as having exclusive allegiance to the US at birth and naturalization is the 1868 Expatriation Act that is codified in Title 8 of the US Code.