I wrote...”“The court said that yes there are citizens other than NBC.”
You replied...”Assuming you mean other than NBC and naturalized, because of COURSE there are citizens other than those who are natural born, there are those who are “naturalized” - WHERE did the court say this?”
My bad! I should have written..“The court said that yes there are BORN citizens other than NBC.”
Your response incorrectly frames the issue... I’ve rewritten it for you as... There are two classes of citizens.... those BORN citizens and those naturalized citizens....(Besides that, your response makes no sense as written, and is circular in arguement, so you may wish to edit?)
The born citizen is, under western political thought, divided into two distinct catagories/concepts/definitions .....
Jus Sanginies....that is citizens by blood. No country in the west, and I’ll bet the world, denies citizenship to the children of its citizens. The USA holds that all children of its citizens are themselves citizens. Pretty easy to find agreement here isn’t it? Arguements? None? Good!
Jus Solis.......An extension of the concept of serfdom. That is, citizenship aquired through birth on the land without reference to the condition of it’s parents. The 14th amendment, and Kim Wong Arc codified and affirmed this legal concept in the US. Again an easy concept to grasp and accept isn’t it? Arguements? .... Note that there are restrictions to aquiring citizenship via this route per the 14th Amendment....KWA met those restrictions....
Naturalized citizens are of course, those, not born citizens, who have legally applied for, and been accepted as citizens. Adoptees of the country? Yep, and subject to various restrictions that change from time to time. Again no problemo? Right? Again, Arguements?
The issue before us is then “What is a Natural Born Citizen as identified by the Founders and listed in their written eligibility requirements for the Office of the President?”
The mere fact that this term “Natural Born Citizen” is used only once in the Constitution, in the eligibility requirements for the highest elected Office in the land, is evidence that it is a special word/phrase/concept in the minds of the Framers/Founders.
So what did they mean by the term NBC?
The answer, supported by references by framers like Ben Franklin, is that the Founders used the concept advanced by Vittal in his 1757 work “Law of Nations” that a nation seeks it’s preservation and continuence in the hands of the children born in the country of parents that are themselves citizens.
In essence the founders recognized a quality of born citizen that combined both the concepts of Jus Sanginis and Jus Solis..... In words repeated often both here and in the legal arena as .....
Wait for it....
“Born in the country to 2 citizen parents.”
This is a minimum eligibility requirement for the office of the President, and, if you consider it fairly, a common sense requirement easily met by the vast majority of the population.....and certainly no great burden on a legitimate presidential candidates.
Only one question left....why can’t you see that simple, logical, and common sense concept?
What do you seek/hope to gain by advanceing your denial of that simple definition/concept?
The phrase “natural born citizen” did not exist in Vattel at the time of the writing of the Constitution. That phrase was entered as a translation from the French word for “indigenous” about 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.
Thus it is far more likely that when the Founders were talking about “natural born” they were going with the phrase as found in English law, and as cited in KW Ark; that being “natural born subject”.
Why I, and the entire rest of the nation, including legal scholars from both political parties; cannot see what you see in the law, is that it quite simply is NOT there.
As to what I hope to gain, I want people to concentrate on removing 0bama via the ballot box and stop blowing smoke about delusional fantasies of having him removed from office through ineligibility, and mass trials for treasonous officials who didn't see what you say you see about the law, and condemnations of good Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh because they didn't carry your fetid water on this issue.
I mean, even you admit (through your cowardly backing out of a bet) that there is just about NO CHANCE of there being a ruling finding him ineligible.
So then, what do YOU hope to gain from insisting upon this definition that is, quite simply, not in evidence, and NOT the prevailing view of the law?
“So what did they mean by the term NBC?”
It means a naturalized citizen cannot be President.
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” - Blackstones Commentaries 1803
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” - Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States`(1829)
In WKA, the Supreme Court wrote
“In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:
It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.”
and
“Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject...”
and
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
and
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.