Replies

It means that the author of the piece is talking out his keester to fit the growing trend of Democrat politicians of potential either not being born here or one or both parents weren’t/aren’t citizens. The ONLY document that is relevant is the United States Constitution and/or the USSC’s interpretation of it. All this other FOREIGN blather about nBC, etc. is just that.

It means that the author of the piece [Joseph DeMaio] is talking out his keester to fit the growing trend of Democrat politicians of potential either not being born here or one or both parents weren’t/aren’t citizens.

Not sure how you mean that but the author is indeed talking in opposition to that growing trend.

The ONLY document that is relevant is the United States Constitution and/or the USSC’s interpretation of it.

Do you agree that if a provision in the Constitution is reasonably susceptible of two or more definitions that the USSC has a role to play in resolving the question?

If so, do you also agree that the court will attempt to determine what the founders intended when they used the term?

If so, do you then agree the court may then find it appropriate to refer to material that was available to the founders when they drafted the Constitution, including any that may have been of foreign origination?

Thank you for posting Gaffer and nickcarraway.

"The ONLY document that is relevant is the United States Constitution and/or the USSC’s interpretation of it."

Respectfully Gaffer, noting that the Constitution doesn't say much about international law, Justice John Jay had also clarified that the Laws of Nations (international law) is a founding law like the Constitution is.

Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:

"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or³ Descriptions—
"1^st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.
2^dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3^dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 1793

So regardless that media led us to believe that Laws of Nations in Constitution is a mystery (my word) in the context of Obama's questionable qualification to be president, first Chief Justice John Jay left us a paper trail from the Constitution to the Laws of Nations imo.