Why do I have to show you this???
Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
But the laws of the United States (juris) control (diction) more than citizens.
You do not contend that the detention and deportation of illegal aliens, for example, is not an exercise of the jurisdiction of the United States?
It is of no significance what some dead guys once said about what XIV means. What counts is what it says.
If Barack Obama senior needed a visa to be in Hawaii, and had to register as all aliens did then, then he was most certainly "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" - or else why would he do those things?
And SCOTUS ruled in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. Neither of Ark's parents were US citizens. A SCOTUS decision overrides a decision by the SOS.
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.
This is one opinion, but it is overriden by the Constitution, Federal law and SCOTUS decisions.
A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
You're seriously going to rely on "the laws of nature?" Come on.
Thank you for posting this to Citizen Blade.
He is refusing to acknowledge that the 14th Amendment DEFINES the term ‘citizen of the United States’ as someone BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
This would mean Arnold (Naturalized in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof)
AND
This would mean Barack (BORN in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof)
AND
This would mean Wonk Kim Ark (BORN in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof)
NONE of them can be President because they are ALL ‘only’ citizens of the United States.
A citizen of the United States, regardless of how they came about their citizenship, can ONLY serve as Senator or Representative. Only a natural born citizen can be President.
If all THREE of those people, under different circumstances, are considered ‘citizens of the United States’ then NONE of them can be President.
Arnold can’t be President because he is naturalized. He is ONLY a US citizen.
Wong Kim Ark can’t be President because he was born on US soil to two foreign parents. He is ONLY a US citizen.
Barack Obama can’t be President because he was born on US soil to ONE foreign parent. He is ONLY a US citizen.
US citizens CANNOT be President.