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” ?
Dittos. I went to grade school in the ‘50’s. Natural Born Citizen was the deal.
PA-RIVER wrote: “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.”
Shocked enough to post about it in the summer of 2008? I didn’t know anyone was on it until Leo Donofrio announced his first suit in October or November 2008. Can you cite it?
“There are other people on these threads that say the same thing.”
And not one verifiable citation.
Here’s my claim again: “In our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.”
That should be easy to disprove if false.
“How do you erase all these men and documents, and call this a ‘New Theory’ ?”
Can you quote me saying it is a “New Theory”? I wrote that it was settled long ago and “It may have been in doubt before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark”. That makes it an old theory, one that lost.
You say you remember what your teacher said in fifth grade like it was yesterday, but you can’t remember what I said even when it literally was yesterday.
“How do you erase all these men and documents, and call this a ‘New Theory’ ?”
Can you quote me saying it is a “New Theory”? I wrote that it was settled long ago and “It may have been in doubt before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark”. That makes it an old theory, one that lost.
You say you remember what your teacher said in fifth grade like it was yesterday, but you mis-remember what I said even when it literally was yesterday.