[DiogenesLamp]

This is a dangerous admission for the anti-birther side. Their arguments always assert that there is NO MERIT WHATSOEVER to the "born of citizen parents" standard for Natural Born Citizen. Now we have an Acknowledged Liberal Law Professor saying that the "jus sanguinis" standard has merit, but he regards the "jus soli" standard as the stronger argument.

Interestingly enough, he had previously invoked the "jus sanguinis" standard in an article at Michigan Law review.

"What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." "

Solum has done the "anti-birthers" a disservice. To acknowledged that there is any merit whatsoever in the "citizen parents" requirement, puts the "anti-birthers" into the position of demanding a weaker standard over a stronger one, rather than arguing that no such standard ever existed in the first place. In essence, he has shown their arguments to be false, and intentional (or perhaps ignorant) misdirections.

This is bad news for those who feel a candidate need barely creep across the minimalist threshold of tolerability to lead them.

Better people, demand better people.

[Mortrey]

JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

[Mortrey]

Justia’s CEO, Tim Stanley’s LinkedIn site....notice the Groups and Associations: Obama For America ‘08.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstanley

[goseminoles]

He was born by c-section?

[Menehune56]

I noticed in the original article that several of the reader comments assert that there are only two kinds of citizens: born or naturalized and that the constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility limits that office to born citizens.

That argument, made by many FReepers as well, fails because it would allow US-born anchor babies whose parents were illegal aliens eligible to be president. I doubt this is what the founders intended at all. There was a very specific reason for the "natural born" language in the supreme law of the land.

[Dajjal]

ineligibility bump

[bushpilot1]

guess this shud be placed in the Vattel research thread.. "When the Law of Nations determines the nationality of any man foreign governments are bound to respect its decisions" M. L. Marcy, Secretary of State, 1853

[W. W. SMITH]

*

[Ramius]

So when does a child born in the U.S. need to become “naturalized” as a citizen?

Of course, they don’t. Because they are the other kind of citizen, of which there are only two kinds in the law.