Because, Pinhead, it was adopted as the Supreme Law of these United States, something you can't say about your French Law dictionary. The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine was widely circulated and presumably read by most of the founders. It is not a part of our legal system and can not be sighted as such, much less be the basis for tossing a President out of office, either.
In other words there is a BIG difference between possible sources of Constitutional Thought and the Document itself. Even The Federalist Papers are not law, just old writings. You get the difference, right?
Jack, you are spewing crap. No one is claiming that Paine’s The Rights of Man is law, or that Vattel’s The Law of Nations is law. We are saying that the Constitution IS law, and we are demanding that it be followed.
And do YOU get this: The Federalist papers and other contemporary sources are routinely used to confirm the Framer’s intent, especially when the drift of language causes people, like you apparently, to impose more modern meanings on words that are not appropriate because they would not have been understood in such a way by the Framers.
You do get THAT, don’t you, PINHEAD.
LOL Jack, you are off your rocker.
There are some concepts that are so fundamentally understood by a society that they go unquestioned. No one thinks to define them because everyone knows them. Issues of citiznship were a BIG deal when the constitution was written. Everyone in that time period accepted the fact that to be Natural Born in ANY country meant you had to have two parentS (You get plural yet?) that were citizens and you had to be born on that soil. There were ZERO routs to Natural Born Citizenship. Both THEN and NOW. They understood that so fundamentally that they would refrence it, with out defining it specifically. Because everyone knoew it.
You know what sun is right? You have to define that? You know what down is? How about dead? How about it? Or are you going to do a Clinton and ask what the meaning of “is” is?
Not even going to slightly buy into that busted up broke a$$ logic. It isn’t even logic.
Sorry, I have given you historical references as to the meaning of the term AS THE FOUNDERS WROTE IT, and you blow it off like I am talking about ants on mars.
Ok, that says more about you than it does me thats for sure.
When interpreting a term, such as natural born citizen, we simply want the true meaning. It appears the true meaning of the Constitution insists two parents of US citizenship.
Will we honor their intent? Maybe, maybe not.