“Can you explain why, and how, idiot, that generations of Americans were taught...”
Most were not. But those who were taught that were being taught from Vattel - except they didn’t know Vattel NEVER WROTE THAT. Vattel was considered an outstanding source of info on international law and the bad American translation of 1797 was the only version most American lawyers would have had access to.
However, most lawyers who STUDIED the issue repeatedly concluded what the US Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark, with their long and detailed analysis of what the term ACTUALLY meant.
“then you intend to mean that all those babies born of illegal aliens in this country are natural born citizens.”
Nope. If you are here illegally, then by definition you are not here under the authority of the government. Or “in amity”, as the Wong Kim Ark decision called it. Those born to illegal aliens are more aligned with those born to a foreign invading army, which Wong Kim Ark noted had never been considered NBC.
You are full of bombast and personal attacks, but you can’t be bothered to read a few paragraphs and find out why NO COURT has ever backed a birther. It is simple: Birthers are wrong on the facts. Period.
You can call me names, but you will never win a court case and, post-Obama, 99% of Americans don’t give a rat’s rear end about your ravings. Suck it up, buttercup!
“Most were not.”
They all were, and you saying they were not does not change reality. The college professor who taught me that, who was from New Jersey, and we were in Louisiana, was of the Korean War generation and he did not just pull it out of his ass.
“Vattel was considered an outstanding source of info on international law and the bad American translation of 1797 was the only version most American lawyers would have had access to.”
What is your point with that, may I ask? It matters not what Vattel wrote, since he did not write the Constitution. And if American lawyers misunderstood it and wrote the misunderstanding into the Constitution, so be it. But there was no mistranslation. John Jay wrote Washington a letter and asked him that “none but a natural born citizen” be placed in charge of the military. Why would he stipulate natural born over just citizen if they were the same? Why would the writers of the Constitution stipulate natural born citizen rather than citizen if they were the same?
People like you still ignore the definition of what a natural born citizen is that is directly defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
You absolutely refuse to. You ingore and think that the rest of us will ignore it.
The distinction of Wong Kim Ark (1898) is that it applied to persons "domiciled" as "permanent residents" of the United States for a basis of citizenship, whereas the parents of Kamala Harris held the status of "visitors" who retained the "domicile" of their native Jamaica and India at the time of Kamala's 1964 birth.
Documents evidencing Kamala Harris ineligibility for VP (and the Presidency) under terms of the Constitution (Natural Born Citizen clause plus the 12th Amendment) available via these links:
Kamala Kancel Website (downloadable PDF available via link)
Kamala Kancel Twitter Site (twitter login required to view)