"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all ,children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."If the supreme court doesn't validate the common law definition - and common law definitions are used to define most terms of law used in the Constitution - they may have effectively amended the Constitution.
One of the better explanations of why the Obot misdirection claiming natural born subjects were equivalent to natural born citizens is that for the British there is no way for a natural born subject to become king or queen, while being a natural born citizen is the only path to the presidency of the United States. The British apply 'jus sanguinis' to select kings and queens - inheritance. So too do the Americans, except that the inheritance required to be come president is the inheritance of allegiance to our Constitution - citizenship
We have become a government of men and not of laws, but it is not to late to repair that. Every representative save Nathan Deal has avoided his or her constitutional oath to obey and defend it. That is a violation of our legal foundation. Perhaps legislators felt that the havoc Obama would bring would result in major gains for the Republican party? Perhaps so, but they have all still broken their sworn oaths to the Constitution.
Dr. Lakin has made a mess of his legal defense. That was obvious from the avoidance of the constitutional violation on Lakin's web site. Either he was deceived by his legal team or is himself a ploy to warn others in the military of the futility of obeying their sworn oaths to obey and protect the Constitution. The Kerchner/Apuzzo suit is the best formed, and has been submitted to the supreme court. We'll see if the court regards the ideas of the founders and framers the law, or if they, like Cas Sunstein, Larry Tribe, Elena Kagen (who saved Tribe's job at Harvard after he was caught plagiarizing), and Sotomayor, feel it is theirs to interpret or construct as will. It wouldn't be the first time, but may be leading us close the the last time the Constitution has meaning.
Without a constitution there is no agreement on civilian control of the military. The court might want to think over the ramifications of further weakening The Constitution. A well armed militia fighting to restore its Constitution could be a good deal messier than Acorn and union thugs attacking banking officials, burning churches, and disrupting free speech.
What bothers me is the SCOTUS majority. IMO the Court has at times past chosen to protect the status quo rather than defend the Constitution-most clearly seen in the defense of the fraud perpetrated by Harrys abortion.
The WKA decision also quotes a paper, published by Binny. in 1853, over 40 years before WKA was decided,
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Thus making a distinction between "the child of an alien" who is a citizen "if born the country" and the "natural born child of a citizen".
Horace Binney: was born January 4, 1780. He graduated from Harvard in 1797 and was admitted to the Philadelphia bar in 1800.
In 1806, Binney became a member of the Pennsylvania legislature, serving until 1807. In 1808 he became a director of the first Bank of the United States, then returned to his political career in 1810 as a member of the Philadelphia Common Council and, from 1816 to 1819, the Philadelphia Select Council.
As a counselor, Binney displayed his legal expertise in cases concerning land titles. He won a famous victory in the Girard Trust Case of 1844, which involved the legality of a charitable legacy left to Philadelphia by philanthropist Stephen Girard. Binney defended the validity of this gift and set a precedent for interpretation of the law in regard to charitable bequests. See also trusts.
Binney was a representative for Pennsylvania in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1833 to 1835. He opposed the views of Andrew Jackson on the Second Bank of the United States: Binney favored the federal bank, while Jackson preferred the use of state banks for federal deposits.
Binney wrote several biographies and case reports, including Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia (1859). He died August 12, 1875, in Philadelphia.