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.
philman_36 wrote: “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.”
You tell not the truth. I’ve been consistent all along: That native-born citizens are natural born citizens was clear and settled long ago, and that’s we enough to dismiss the nonsense at issue. You asked a broader question, and I can tell you that the modern consensus is that “natural-born citizen” means citizen from birth.
philman_36 claimed: “No, I injected “[native-born citizens]” into the sentence to give clarification to the “they” mentioned.”
No, philman_36, the antecedent was clear. Here it is without your falsification:
“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 be regarded as ‘natural-born’ within the contemplation of the Constitution?”
Perfectly clear what question he was examining. You, philman_36, quoted falsely.