There is simply no reasoning with these people on this issue. First they say look to the plain meaning and then they say not to look at the plain meaning, but to reference an 18th cen treatise.
They also cannot cite to any official govt’t document such as a birth certificate or passport which draws a distinction between “natural born” and ‘born’ citizens of the USA.
Of course they cannot do so because there is no such distinction.
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, ( Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.”
Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 101-102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 45 (U.S.1884)
There is a reason there is no case or procedure for a person born in the US to foreign nat’l parents who are here illegaly to be naturalized. The reason is because that person is a citizen at birth and doesn’t need to be naturalized.
You are so right. If it was a question of the birthright of the parents, then why all the hoopla over the short form vs the long form of Obama’s birth certificate? We already know his father is a Kenyan, so he could be disqualified just on those grounds, no matter which BC he uses. The whole question has been, was he born in Hawaii, or was he born in Kenya?
Now the rules keep changing with every argument we present. Let them fight it out. I have a very busy Saturday ahead of me. Bobby Jindal IS eligible. Argue with me all you people want, but it won’t matter in the long run. If Bobby Jindal wants to run, he will and will meet all eligibility requirements. Have fun.
“There is simply no reasoning with these people on this issue.”
We have people who have reached a conclusion based on what their gut tells them the law should be, or using their own intuition, rather than considering what the law IS. And they are bound and determined to insist that the law is what they want it to be, not what it is.
As with the leftwing judicial activists, when you go down that path, you can reach any conclusion at all.