Thank you, Red. Please read what I’ve written carefully, and let’s discuss our differences amicably, regardless of how much we disagree. Okay with you? Thanks.
I will comment on the text you posted to me at the end of my post. That text comes at the end of text in the footnote that I want to discuss first.
The following is in footnote 2 on page 6 (he’s quoting from Osborn v. Bank of U.S.):
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.”
TE says: Above, the writer is naming two types of citizens. Is that right? Those two are: “the native born and of the naturalized person.” Agreed?
“The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
TE says: The writer now uses the word “difference,” saying, “The only difference drawn by the Constitution is,” which indicates he is referring to a “difference” between the two previously named types of citzens, the “native born and of the naturalized person.” Is that right?
TE continues: Thus, the writer’s complete statement is that the only difference between the “native born and of the naturalized person” is “is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
TE further states: But look what he’s done: He’s brought in a third type of citizen, hasn’t he? Instead of saying “is that only the ‘native’ citizen is eligible to be President.” Right? But ... But ... Wasn’t he beginning a sentence that told us the difference between the following two types of citizens, which he had originally named (see the first paragraph quoted above): “the native born and of the naturalized person”?? Wasn’t he doing that?
TE concludes: Thus, his statement makes no sense at all unless, to him, “native born” and “natural born” mean the same thing. Isn’t that right?
Now to the text of footnote 2 that you quoted: “ “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
TE says: That text is a further quote from Osborn that comes after the text I quoted above from Osborn. This text, in effect, summarizes or presents the thrust of the text I quoted above.
TE says now: Thus, your text example, and the text that I quoted above, appears to support my position that “native” and “natural born” in fact *do* mean the same thing. That is, Circuit Judges Kelly, Briscoe, and Holmes appear to agree with my interpretation.
It comes down to this.
All Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens. This is where you get confused or you just obfuscate the issue.
Osborn v. Bank Of The U.S. dealt specifically with whether the right to sue was the same for naturalized citizens as native citizens. There are numerous cites from this that negate your attempt to specifically enumerate and therefore restrict allowable, Constitutional types of citizen to language used in Legislative Acts. You conflate enumerated powers of the Legislative, in determining a uniform law of naturalization, and the attendant forms of citizenship governed by Legislative Acts, with Constitutional citizenship that is not governed by Legislative Acts.
A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.
So, the Constitution makes the distinction. What distinction does the Constitution make, regarding citizenship and eligibility for the office of President?
You know the answer to this, and false equivalence does not evade the specific language. It's been made clear to you, that the native, indigenous and natural born share a trait, that being born of the soil, jus soli.
And yet, there is the specific term of art utilized, under the Constitution, not due to an act of legislation, to make a finer point of distinction, for those who would be President, as the Constitution prescribes. That term of art is natural born citizen. Yes, natural born citizens are indigenous, and are natives. A square is a rectangle, too, but a rectangle is not always a square. This is the logical fallacy to which you've either fallen prey, or have cynically chosen to espouse, in order to confuse the issue.
I've seen enough of your efforts here, to come down squarely on the side of your having cynically chosen to espouse fallacious interpretations in order to confuse the issue.
That was a pretty brilliant analysis of the Court’s words, Technical Editor. Well Done.
I personally found the following to be the most important phrases in the Court’s decision:
“Thus, Mr. Craig’s claim is sufficiently attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous that the district court’s dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) was not in error.
See Cardtoons, 95 F.3d at 965; see, e.g., Kroll v. Finnerty, 242 F.3d 1359, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiff’s sole basis for alleging federal jurisdiction was so unfounded and devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).”
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.”
I don’t read here that there are ONLY two. He is comparing two of them, then later refers to the third. Which is still a native born citizen with additional requirements.