Replies

philman_36 wrote:

The first thing that strikes me is that you fail to use the whole paragraph. Perhaps that's because it doesn't help your argument since you have the tendency to present the concept of native-born to be the same as natural-born.

You tell not the truth. I do not equate native-born and natural-born. I equate citizenship from birth with natural-born citizenship. In any case, that native-born citizens qualify as natural-born was clear and settled long before Obama ran for president.

So, for clarity...the whole paragraph instead of your snippet.
The approach of our 45th presidential election evokes once again the question of constitutional eligibility. Under the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution, only "natural-born" citizens are qualified for this highest office. It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.' The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents. Can they [native-born citizens] be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?

You tell not the truth. You injected "[native-born citizens]" into Gordon's paragraph to change the question he's asking.

Do you consider your actions ethical since the usage of your snippet limits the thoughts Gordon was trying to present?

Telling the truth like I do, with properly represented and cited quotes, that's ethical. Your thing, not so much.

And now to the meat... What say you? Answer his question. Can the "native-born" be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?

No philman_36, that is not his question. Gordon's question is whether "those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents" can be regarded as natural-born. Those are not the native-born. The eligibility of the native born was already clear.

BladeBryan wrote:
I do not equate native-born and natural-born. I equate citizenship from birth with natural-born citizenship. [then the wiggling starts] In any case, that native-born citizens qualify as natural-born was clear and settled long before Obama ran for president.
You poor guy. You do it again while denying that you do. And you should just throw every source you use out the window since what you believe ("I equate...") overrides everything.
Answer the question plainly...Are native born citizens the exact same thing as natural born citizens?
I'm not asking if they "qualify as" natural born citizens.
You injected "[native-born citizens]" into Gordon's paragraph to change the question he's asking.
No, I injected "[native-born citizens]" into the sentence to give clarification to the "they" mentioned.
Besides, if those born abroad to American parents were already natural-born citizens why would Gordon even need to ask if they should be "regarded as" (whereas you say "qualify as") natural born citizens.
Can they [native-born citizens] be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?
Aren't those born without jus soli (born abroad) only native born citizens and not natural born citizens who have both jus soli and jus sanguini?
After all, Gordon said...
"The common law, as it had developed through the years, recognized a combination of the jus soli and the jus sanguinis. A similar combination has always been embraced by the laws of the United States, except for the possibility of an inadvertent hiatus between 1802 and 1855."
It seems to me that you're arguing against yourself, not me.

And I note with a great deal of amusement that with all of your point by point responding you didn't even touch this...
Don't you find that while using Minor v. Happersett as a source Gordon failed to recognize Vattel as a potential source for the term "natural born citizen" when he wrote this...

The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who "were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."¹⁴² While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it. ¹⁴³
How about you respond to that in your next reply.
And thank you for stating who you are not.