Replies

Thank you but I’m looking for a reference that is relevant to what is being discussed here: presidential eligibility under Article II’ Section1. A simple statement like: “In order to assume the office of President, a candidate must be the offspring of two American citizen parents” would suffice nicely.

Must it further stipulate that they must also be human beings with ten fingers and ten toes? You are carrying the notion of specificity to ridiculous lengths if a statement as to what constitutes a natural born citizen isn't sufficient. It is axiomatic that if one cannot achieve even the basic definition, one is certainly incapable of achieving the more stringent definition.

You should just try to understand what occurred and why. The founders were intent on breaking from their status as English Subjects, and establishing a new standard based on natural law. People who were not actually privy to their intentions simply got it wrong when they reverted back to English "perpetual allegiance" law.

State courts, and various legal authorities who were out of the US Constitutional loop contributed to this erroneous substitution of British Law for American Law. Since the differences between the two were trivial at first, the distinction between one and the other was slowly lost over time, and again thanks to the erroneous works of people such as Rawle.

I’m looking for something succinct and definitive that would counter judicial rulings on eligibility under Article II, Section 1,

I have no comprehension of why you give any credence to what any modern court says. They are simply prattling on what they believe "PRECEDENT" to be. There is no effort to get to the kernel of truth from the founding, they simply repeat the previous opinions of previous judges.

Wong Kim Ark was either Wrongly decided, or subsequently Wrongly interpreted. It is from that fork in the road that all subsequent mistakes have materialized. Again, I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to what any modern court has to say on the issue.