Replies

I'm a little surprised that you're holding up England as a model here. Usually when someone quotes the Wong Kim Ark decision to the effect that "The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government," they get a lecture about how we fought a war and how citizens are nothing like subjects at all etc etc.

I merely note that the British do not use their OWN law in the manner you claim we should use ours. You and others are constantly going on about English Jurisprudence being the source of American law on this issue, so I thought you might be persuaded by the obvious example of the English NOT employing the law in the manner you suggest.

But while we are on the subject, do you believe the English Common law regarding "natural born subject" is the basis for the American Article II term, "natural born citizen"?

But your question illustrates the difference in our approaches to this topic. You start with what you think the law should accomplish--have no exceptions, keep Obama out of the presidency--and poke and prod the actual words in an attempt to make them do that.

As the law was created at the instigation of John Jay's urging that it be made to do exactly that, (keep foreign influence out of the executive) it occurs to me that any interpretation which does not accomplish the goal for which the legislation was created, MUST BE WRONG.

I try to figure out what the words actually say and mean, even if I don't like some of the results they end up permitting.

As do I. I have already acknowledged to others of your side (perhaps you have seen it?) that I cede Madison's comments (regarding the seating of Mr. Smith) to you, and Rawles, and a couple of others. It is evident that there were people in American History that believed just being born within our borders creates natural born citizens without any regard for the parent's citizenship. I can only conclude that such people just didn't get the memo.

Anyway, I too go where the facts lead, even if I don't like the result.

..,..As the law was created at the instigation of John Jay's urging that it be made to do exactly that, (keep foreign influence out of the executive) it occurs to me that any interpretation which does not accomplish the goal for which the legislation was created, MUST BE WRONG....

Its not only wrong it is an ABSURD result..How many Americans truly believe our founders who created this wonderful Constitution would allow the offspring of two illegal aliens temporarily in the US to be eligible to be President of the US?

It is bad enough some a$$ clowns decided without authority from Congress or the people that offspring of illegal aliens who snuck across our borders and broke our laws are citizens. Not only does it reward illegal behavior, it encourages it. That is wrong and absurd on its face also but not as bad as having a President of illegals. Do liberals have no common sense and devoid of logic? Only mentally ill persons could propose such nonsense.