I grasp what you are contending. There are conflicting contentions; namely from the US State Department Foreign Affairs Manual. I think the USSC sees the need, and the hour is at hand, for them to define some 232 years later, what the founders meant by natural born citizen. I think you see it in black and white. I don’t. Further, when the US State Department states it’s ambiguity in the reading of the matter, then I am inclined to defer to the potential of a USSC ruling.
The issue of allegiance is an interesting basis for citizenship. I can see some merit in this line of thinking. I do not believe that the founders made such a distinction clear, in regards to birth on foreign soil.
Do you have knowledge of citations saying otherwise?
It’s probable that we have many more future POTUS usurpers in cocoon and the USSC would like to nail down eligibiity now, in order to discourage them.
Like another FReep noted, the SC loves opportunites to argue ‘original intent’.
Because if 0 skates on this, and gets a ‘private records’ ruling, Ahhnold is eligible, right?
Yes I do see it as black and white. Having done extensive study for the last decade on the Founding and Founders there is no doubt in my mind that they considered alligiance as the most important aspect of “Natural Born”.
It would be a complete violation of their ethical view had children of citizen agents of the state been excluded from full citizenship.
It simply makes no sense which is why this case is a distraction and destructive of the need to expose Zero ineligibility. I have no confidence in this guy’s motives if he is willing to ignore such a basic concept. Only Obama will profit from this distraction.
The Founders did not exclude citizens born abroad only those who had not been in the colonies for 14 years prior to the ratification i.e. 1773. I call this the Hamilton Clause since it made him eligible.