Replies

Good grief is right. You can cite dissenting court OPINION til the cows come home it doesn't change a thing. Courts do not get to make law, only the legislature does. I can cite court OPINIONS that refute your dissenting court OPINIONS and we can go around and around on this thing. Ditto with attorney opinions and reviews. For every source you think supports your view I can cite 2 or 3 others that support my view.

Yes, I know resolutions do not have the binding force of law but they are certainly more binding than a court's dissenting opinion. Senate resolutions being part of our legistative branch lead to policy which lead to the actual drafting of bills which lead to law. Dissenting opinions don't. Unless you're now going to try and tell me that dissenting opinions and courts get to make the laws now??

The fact that you cannot accept is that the traditional definition that 'natural born' means born on native soil to 2 citizen parents has never been changed. Anywhere. Not in the courts, not in Acts of Congress, not in Constitutional Amendments.

But let's get back to S.R. 511. This resolution does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent. Instead this resolution specifically states citizens plural. Why? Why is it important that both parents must be citizens in this resolution? And why did Senator McCaskill seek to get another resolution passed after this one (as if she thought she screwed up or something) that specified one could be natural born with only one citizen parent but failed? In fact why have there been over 30 attempts since the 1870's to re-define the traditional meaning of natural born (born on native soil to two citizen parents) if this definition has 'not' been settled already??? Why bother?

There have been FIVE attempts to re-define the meaning of 'natural born' just since 2001:

- 110th Congress, 2nd Session, S.2678 - 2/28/2008 - To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

- 109th Congress, 1st Session, H.J. 15 - 2/1/2005 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

- 108th Congress, 2nd Session, S. 2128 - 2/25/2004 - To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and (2) any person born outside the United States-- (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

- 108th Congress, 2nd Session, H.J. Res. 104 - 9/15/2004 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

- 107th Congress, 1st Session, H.J. Res. 47 - 5/2/2001 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years.

If its not been 'settled' why all these attempts to re-define the term since Vattel's day??? Congress apparently does think 'natural born' has been defined at least in some way and so they keep trying to change it. That alone proves you WRONG. If its not been officially 'defined' they don't need to change it now do they?

Some people are just obtuse. As I said earlier we do not agree on this issue. You have shared your arguments and I have given mine. You believe I am FULL OF WRONG INFORMATION and I am convinced YOU ARE FULL OF WRONG INFORMATION not to mention incapable of grasping logic. You see logic would necessarily dictate that if something hasn't been defined you don't need resolutions re-defining it now do you? It is time to start acting like and adult and simply say:

Okay, we agree to disagree and MOVE ON. Capiche?

I refuse to get into a flame war with you. Stop acting like a 2 year throwing a temper tantrum because I don't share your opinion on this subject. Grow up.