Replies

No, the mistake is yours.

The first Congress, made up of many of our founders, wrote in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that citizens born overseas of citizen parents were natural born citizens.

While that comports with the “two citizen parents” requirement of the post 2008 popular definition - it certainly doesn't comport with the “born in country” requirement.

Prior to the election this was not a well known or popular definition of “natural born citizen” - most eligibility debates focused on the dual citizenship angle - or the authenticity of the Hawaii abstract COLB.

Now, of course, we have people claiming that they learned this in grade school - but were somehow conveniently forgetful of that fact until sometime after the election in 2008.

The confusion is to be expected once the United States adopted uniform naturalization laws. Early England largely determined citizenship by jus soli, right of soil. This policy proved to be problematic with English citizens having prominent English families in the English territorial possessions beyond the borders of England. In response, the jus soli docctrine was tempered in later centuries by the limited adoption of the jus sanguinis, right of blood, doctrine with respect to English families in certain circumstances. Some of the British North American colonies upon indepndence and before the Federal Government adopted a uniform Federal naturalization laws favored the mixed jus sanguinis and jus soli doctrines.

Unfortunately, the later 19th Century to 21st Century public and politicians have forgotten and/or ignored the past and its evolved applications of the doctrines and their purposes.

No, the mistake is yours.

The first Congress, made up of many of our founders, wrote in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that citizens born overseas of citizen parents were natural born citizens.

And they immediately said thereafter that not even BASIC CITIZENSHIP of ANY SORT shall be given to the children of Fathers who were not residents in this country.

They SPECIFICALLY said the children born of foreign fathers are OUT! NOT EVEN CITIZENS!

While that comports with the “two citizen parents” requirement of the post 2008 popular definition - it certainly doesn't comport with the “born in country” requirement.

I have long regarded it as evidence that the First Congress didn't care where the children were born, but they were absolutely insistent that the child have an American Father. I interpret this to mean that "Jus Sanguinus" was the standard, and that "Jus Soli" is irrelevant.

Most debate focused on people's false understanding of the meaning of the 14th amendment which many people mistakenly thought trumped and repealed Article II. It did not. The ignorance of people is no excuse to baring the admission of the actual facts, whether they be made known to some people before or after the election.

Now, of course, we have people claiming that they learned this in grade school - but were somehow conveniently forgetful of that fact until sometime after the election in 2008.

Nobody gave a crap until it was too close to the election to do anything about it. I don't know about you, but I wasn't wasting my time chatting people up on the Internet. I was out campaigning and working to defeat that incompetent fool who may represents the IDIOT Democrats perfectly, but who is the bumbling destroyer of our nation. If you had time to discuss this crap then you were goofing off on the sidelines. (Or more like trying to help the idiot, as you are now.) McCain should have challenged him, but McCain was too much of a Gentleman to point out what an incompetent nitwit Barack was, let alone challenge his eligibility.