WildSnail wrote: “For as long as I can remember, my understanding of nbC was always ‘born in the country to two citizen parents.’ And there have been plenty of other posts on these threads from other people who also have believed the same for many years. So please stop pretending that it’s a new idea. It’s not”
So why can you not show me a single one who expressed this view before they needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president? Civics textbooks, legal journals, /Blacks Law Dictionary/ stated that the native born are eligible, and no one can find any rebuttal. It may have been in doubt before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but not in our time.
If I’m wrong, please cite. I’ll still disagree, but I acn respect a contrarian. What I don’t respect is people who start telling the rules different when they don’t like who is winning.
Please tell us when his contemporaneous documented definition was amended in the constitution to just “born a citizen”.
Go to Philadelphia. Walk the halls where the founders produced this document. This man is real. He was a president of congress. His portrait is probably in the building down the street. There is a building a block form Independence hall with all the founders portraits.
I'm telling you I was taught that it required two citizen parents, almost 40 years ago. The summer before Obama was elected, I was in shock that a dual citizen was running for president.
There are other people on these threads that say the same thing. They were taught that it required two citizens. I am not the only one. Did it come out of a text book? No. It came from a college educated woman's mouth who was an expert in US history. This “Theory” was documented fact by a founder, 200 years ago. It was repeated in the halls of congress. It is in a supreme court decision.
How do you erase all these men and documents, and call this a “New Theory” ?