Ridiculous and out of context, of course, as Vattel said children of soldiers serving overseas were defacto born in country - but there we have it.
But you seemed to have conveniently glossed over that the definition you said was somehow axiomatic and known to the founders was immediately contradicted when they completely ignored the supposed requirement of being born in country.
So the definition that supposedly the founders followed wasn't followed.
The definition that supposedly everyone should know - nobody did.
That people now try to claim that anybody who didn't always subscribe to said definition is either a traitor or a dupe just shows the depths of idiocy and historic revisionism necessary towards being a birther.
We have ALWAYS been at war with EASTASIA!!!!
Your "johnny come lately post election definition" claim is a falsehood. The issue was debated throughout McCain's candidacy and before he was nominated as a candidate. All of this discussion culminated with the Congress passing a resolution acknowledging, rightly or wrongly, McCain's eligibility to the Office of the President.
Ridiculous and out of context, of course, as Vattel said children of soldiers serving overseas were defacto born in country - but there we have it.
Nonetheless, the issue and the debate resurfaced with every war. It required a special act of Congress to bring the children of U.S. soldiers from Korea to the United States when their mother was Korean. Likewise with WWII and the children of those veterans. The complexities of the immigration and naturalization laws are being made ever more complex and sometimes conflict. This all stems from contradictory decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the efforts to the Democrats to enable illegal immigration along with legal immigration.
But you seemed to have conveniently glossed over that the definition you said was somehow axiomatic and known to the founders was immediately contradicted when they completely ignored the supposed requirement of being born in country.
Given that the parties to the debates often vigorously disputed each other over the "in country" attributes, no credence can be given to your false notion that the issue was somehow "completely ignored" when in fact is strongly disputed.
So the definition that supposedly the founders followed wasn't followed.
The definition that supposedly everyone should know - nobody did.
Since the definition was vigorously debated, those are false statements.
That people now try to claim that anybody who didn't always subscribe to said definition is either a traitor or a dupe just shows the depths of idiocy and historic revisionism necessary towards being a birther.
Given the false statements and false accusations you make and the attempts to ridicule and defame anyone who defends the Constitution's natural born citizen clause, it is clearly evident from your own statements that it is yourself who is engaging in "historic revisionism" and other commentary inconsistent with Conservative principles. It is quite possible to disagree on certain issues of certain points without subverting the Constitution, the principles of the Constitution, and its defenders. Unfortunately, you have chosen to attack the defenders of the Constitution in a manner like the trolls who seek to defame Conservatives and subvert the Constitution and the Rule of Law fundamental to a Republic of sovereign individuals.
It is not a "johnny come lately" definition. It is the one which always existed, and it has only been since the election that the ignorant folk were made aware of it. They are still stuck on that 14th amendment crap.
McCain had his own problems with eligibility.
Politically, not legally. As near as I can tell, John McCain was ALWAYS a "Natural Born Citizen" under the original meaning of Article II. It is only because so many idiot Democrats get into the legal system that most people have come to regard 14the amendment citizenship as the deciding factor. Too many Americans now believe (falsely) that if you are born in this country, you are automatically a "natural born citizen."
Ridiculous and out of context, of course, as Vattel said children of soldiers serving overseas were defacto born in country - but there we have it.
Absolutely. It boggles the mind that anyone would be so stupid as to believe that the families of those serving our nation's interests in other parts of the world would not be considered as completely loyal to this nation and deserving of every right and privilege available to our highest level of citizenship. The First Congress made this very point in the "Naturalization act of 1790." Jus Soli is completely irrelevant.
But you seemed to have conveniently glossed over that the definition you said was somehow axiomatic and known to the founders was immediately contradicted when they completely ignored the supposed requirement of being born in country.
Jus Soli is the British method of Subjugation. (Making subjects out of otherwise free men.) If it was used in this country by some states, it was a lingering after effect of the originally ubiquitous British laws. Once we nationalized, existing state's doctrine on citizenship was eventually subsumed to a unified American doctrine of citizenship, and being born here was not the prime requirement.
So the definition that supposedly the founders followed wasn't followed.
Correct. Just like the 10th Amendment is routinely violated, as is the 14th, the 5th, and various others.
The definition that supposedly everyone should know - nobody did.
Again correct. And you are surprised for some reason? It took over twoHundred years before the Supreme court interpreted the 2nd Amendment correctly and decided that it is an INDIVIDUAL right, and not a collective one. The Breakthrough landmark case was McDonald v. Chicago. So don't have a little pouting fit because they didn't get the requirements of Presidential eligibility correct the very first time it had to deal with a non-qualified applicant.
That people now try to claim that anybody who didn't always subscribe to said definition is either a traitor or a dupe just shows the depths of idiocy and historic revisionism necessary towards being a birther.
I fault no one for being ignorant before they are told. That people who were ignorant before, and insist on being ignorant AFTER (having been shown the evidence that proves conclusively to any reasonable person) indicates that they must be a dupe, a traitor, or just too stupid to be able to comprehend this issue. Their arguments in response are always "British Law This!" (false) "Precedent That!" Not a single argument from first principles, because they cannot make an argument from first principles. Even when they quote the "Naturalization act of 1790", they don't seem to understand the significance of the part that says the children of foreign fathers cannot be citizens!
We have ALWAYS been at war with EASTASIA!!!!
Some of us have always tried to re-write history by citing foreign law and precedent, but the rest of us are not falling for it. We know very well who we are at war with.