US Supreme Court: UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION et al.
Some commentators have theorized that the Framers understood those terms in relation to the precisely defined categories, fashionable in the contemporary literature of international law, of accords between sovereigns. See, e. g., Engdahl, Characterization of Interstate Arrangements: When Is a Compact Not a Compact?, 64 Mich.L.Rev. 63 (1965); Weinfeld, What Did the Framers of the Federal Constitution Mean by "Agreements or Compacts"?, 3 U.Chi.L.Rev. 453 (1936). The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition, in French, of Vattel's Law of Nations and remarked that the book "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting . . . ." 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889), cited in Weinfeld, supra, at 458.
Title 18 U.S.C 1401
Does not change the meaning of constitutional terms written in 1787. It is a liberal belief that the terms are malleable, not a conservative one.
As far as preference or truth, I stated the truth by identifying specific, current US law.
To the Contrary, you identify what is NOT the truth by citing current US Law. Once again, your theory is that Constitutional terms are malleable, a theory which the Liberals have been using and abusing since Roosevelt took over the Federal court system. Congressionally enacted laws cannot change qualifications for President. It DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY. An Amendment is required, and it must explicitly address the point being changed.
Article 1 Section 8 establishes the powers of Congress. One of the powers listed is “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,....”. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
I agree wholeheartedly! It explicitly empowers congress to "naturalize" people according to a uniform set of rules. Again, the operative word is "naturalize" which means to make "like natural". Now do you believe "naturalize" and "natural" mean the same thing?
The “stone” in our national foundation is the Constitution. By means of the Constitution, the PEOPLE established and described the authorities and powers of the different branches. These are defined by the Articles contained within the Constitution. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Oh, I agree. It is YOU, who disagrees. You seem to think the meaning of the document can be re-written by an act of Congress. From your perspective, Congress has the power to be a continuously ongoing constitutional convention that can change the meaning of eligibility requirements as it suits them.
Again. CONGRESS. CAN. NOT. CHANGE. THE. QUALIFICATIONS. FOR. PRESIDENT.
Congress has done so in Title 8 US code 1401 which, in subsection a, establishes citizenship by birth. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Once More. CONGRESS. CAN. NOT. CHANGE. THE. QUALIFICATIONS. FOR. PRESIDENT.
Further, SCOTUS has ruled in a number of cases (see above) that Citizenship in the US is obtained by birth on our soil. do you agree or disagree with that fact?
SCOTUS has ruled that the status of "citizen" is established by domiciled birth upon our soil. They didn't establish that "natural born citizen" was the result of birth on our soil. As a matter of fact, they conspicuously omitted those words, in both the 14th and the "Wong" decision. Furthermore, the same court which made such a ruling also ruled that Blacks and Whites were "Separate but Equal", (Plessy v Fergusson) so i'm not impressed much with their judgement.
Apart from that, Here's a slightly different one. SCOTUS. CAN. NOT. CHANGE. THE. QUALIFICATIONS. FOR. PRESIDENT.