Replies

If all but the language within the brackets was proposed a reviewer would have said, "Wait a minute by definition there will not be any NB citizens prior to the date this contract is formed - because they would not have had parents who were citizens of this new nation we are about to create!". That would have produced the need to add the language set out in the brackets.

This point has been raised before, but for some reason people believing the "English law" theory, don't seem to be able to grasp it.

Yes, if being born here made you a "citizen", why wasn't everyone born here already considered a "natural born citizen"?

This point has been raised before, but for some reason people believing the "English law" theory, don't seem to be able to grasp it.

Indeed, it has been raised by others and me since the 2008 Obama eligibility question first arose. There has been a lot of muddled, confused thinking on the issue in addition to intentional deception across the nation.

IMO, the NBC language it is not susceptible of more than a single interpretation and thus is not an ambiguous statement. The only issue can be what did the founders intend when they used the NBC term?.

It is clear to many of us they (Jay and Washington) primarily wanted to insure a President, who also serves as CIC, as well as their immediate family has no allegiance to England; and most, if not all, who signed the document agreed.

Most of the litigation has addressed the citizenship of those born outside of the U.S. and none squarely addressing NBC has been properly presented to the USSC (which, of course, acts with few exceptions as a court of appeal).

But there is hope. While there is nothing to reverse in this instance but confusion, the court did have the courage to reverse its Dred Scott decision as well as Roe v Wade.