No bait given. Just a correction of your errors. You claimed it said something that it clearly does not. It's your failure to comprehend that leads you to think it's bait - I guess you considered it bait when your teachers corrected you as well?
And thanks for the implicit admission of your error. Calling names and running away from the point is great confirmation of your error. Second greatest such admission on the Internet, second only to Godwin's law.
Sure, the one that was changed by the Civil War. Scott v. Sanford. Prior to that, ever court decision involving Slaves and Indians.
Were slaves considered persons? Nope - they were exempt considered property, not people. Chattel, just commodities to be bought, sold and traded as needed. Nice try, though.
And of course we've since had the 14th Amendment (those pesky Amendments again) - and since that IS part of the Constitution, and has been for about 150 years (well before the great, great grandparents of Rubio or Obama were even born), they are natural born citizens by virtue of birth on US soil.
You just don't want to answer the question directly - because doing so will show you to be a liar or a fool - and either one sucks to be you!
>> “and since that IS part of the Constitution, and has been for about 150 years (well before the great, great grandparents of Rubio or Obama were even born), they are natural born citizens by virtue of birth on US soil.” <<
.
Wrong!
No one is NB by virtue of birth on US soil. what you describe is what WKA called “native citizen” as separate from Natural Born citizen, as discussed in the decision; that was why they created the term “native citizen.”
It is bait to draw me into a discussion of how changing the citizenship of the mother affects the citizenship of the child. That is not the point, that is an irrelevant side issue. I have told you that it is an irrelevant side issue, and you have persisted in making that the focus of your argument. The point is that split citizenship was unknown during the founding era AND the subsequent 14th amendment era.
And thanks for the implicit admission of your error. Calling names and running away from the point is great confirmation of your error. Second greatest such admission on the Internet, second only to Godwin's law.
The Dog chases a car and thinks it is running; frightened away by the barking no doubt. :)
Were slaves considered persons? Nope - they were exempt considered property, not people. Chattel, just commodities to be bought, sold and traded as needed. Nice try, though.
Are you so dense as to not comprehend the significance of this point? They WERE considered people. No one ever thought a slave was not a person. They just didn't have legal rights because they were slaves. Some slaves were manumitted and became citizens. THEY passed on their citizenship to their offspring, but their enslaved brethren could not do this. Why? It was because they did not have the characteristic that made it possible. CITIZENSHIP. Those children of former slaves were themselves legally CITIZENS.
And of course we've since had the 14th Amendment (those pesky Amendments again) - and since that IS part of the Constitution, and has been for about 150 years (well before the great, great grandparents of Rubio or Obama were even born), they are natural born citizens by virtue of birth on US soil.
The 14th amendment was created to make Citizens of Freed Slaves. It "naturalized" the slaves en masse. It was not created to repeal article II or make children born of foreigners eligible.
You just don't want to answer the question directly - because doing so will show you to be a liar or a fool - and either one sucks to be you!
Pot, meet kettle. You have yet to address the subject of the non-existance of dual citizens prior to the 20th century, regardless of how many times I have attempted to steer you back to it.