I haven’t misconstrued anything. You have intentionally tried to cloud the issue. You continually cite John Bingham who was writing about things almost 80 years after the Constitution was written, yet have a problem with a law that was passed by the people that actually wrote the Constitution.
Oh, and nothing Bingham states is against what was said previously. That is that a child born outside the U.S. to two American parents is born an American citizen and is qualified to be President of the U.S. You cite Bingham but fail to mention that the 14th amendment never even uses the word Natural born citizen, does it? It uses the same language “citizens of the United States” as the many laws that have been enacted to clarify what a natural born citizen is.
To summarize. The constitution gives the qualification of a President (natural born citizen) but does not define it. Vattel is not constitutional authority. They left the definition of it up to the States, Congress, Courts etc. If not, they would have defined the term right in the constitution. The first Congress defined that as a child born to two U.S. citizens outside the U.S. is a natural born citizen. Subsequent Congresses have defined these children as citizens of the United States. The same term used in the 14th amendment which you use to justify people born here to be natural born.
We have had many Presidential candidates (Romney, Goldwater) who were born outside the U.S. and no one had a problem with them. It was understood because of existing laws. Defining natural born does not violate anything in the Constitution. The only reason Obama’s citizenship is in question is because he is thought to be born outside the U.S. and one of his parents was not an American citizen.
Question, if John McCain was not born a citizen of the United States, to which country was he born to? Panama? Is he actually Panamanian and someone didn’t tell us?
I've provided specific cites for precedent and given background on the Supreme Court Justices and Senators, respectively, responsible for, one, the natural-born citizen requirement in the Constitution itself, and two, the reasoning behind the subsequent lack of statute or Congressional Acts dealing with this Constitutional requirement in any way, shape or form. Far from clouding the issue, I've brought clarity. Your cites have been consistently misconstrued by you, or even misquoted outright.
You continually cite John Bingham who was writing about things almost 80 years after the Constitution was written, yet have a problem with a law that was passed by the people that actually wrote the Constitution.
I'm obviously not the only one who has or had a problem with The Nationality Act Of 1790, since it was repealed and replaced with statutory language that did not make reference to "natural-born citizen" at all. This repeal is correct per the powers enumerated to the Legislative by the Constitution, but you refuse to acknowledge this.
Oh, and nothing Bingham states is against what was said previously. That is that a child born outside the U.S. to two American parents is born an American citizen and is qualified to be President of the U.S
I've provided Bingham's statement regarding the Amendment that he, himself authored, the 14th Amendment, wherein he says of his S 61 Bill: " ... I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." I don't know how Bingham could have made himself any clearer about his intention for his Bill, which became the 14th Amendment.
You cite Bingham but fail to mention that the 14th amendment never even uses the word Natural born citizen, does it? It uses the same language “citizens of the United States” as the many laws that have been enacted to clarify what a natural born citizen is.
I've not only mentioned, repeatedly, that the 14th Amendment never even uses the term "natural-born citizen," but I have provided you with the reason why: the Constitution cannot be changed by statute or by an Act of Congress. I agree with the author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham on this, who in turn agreed with judicial precedent going all the way back to the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, and even before ratification of the Constitution. For the life of me, I cannot seem to grasp why you think this would support your misguided interpretation, of the word "citizen" meaning more than "citizen" means, especially in a legal document of any kind, let alone the Constitution of the United States.
To summarize. The constitution gives the qualification of a President (natural born citizen) but does not define it.
Would you like a list of other, self-evident terms of art from the Constitution, Old Teufel Hunden? There are quite a few.
Vattel is not constitutional authority.
The influence of Emmerich de Vattel and The Law Of Nations cannot be emphasized enough. It was in the possession of the Framers at the time the Constitution was being written, it's quoted by Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, every early Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ... what on earth are you talking about, here?
They left the definition of it up to the States, Congress, Courts etc.
Wrong. The Constitution enumerated power to the Legislative over naturalization and immigration matters. The principle of judical review was established by Marbury v. Madison, and no statute nor any Act of Congress can alter language in the Constitution. That requires a Constitutional Amendment.
If not, they would have defined the term right in the constitution.
If you get anything out of this exchange, between you and me, it will be memorizing the words of the author of the 14th Amendment, specifically referencing his own bill. These words of John Bingham are even in this reply, so you don't have to wander too far afield to find it.
The first Congress defined that as a child born to two U.S. citizens outside the U.S. is a natural born citizen.
I can only marvel at your dependence upon revoked law, here. What next, citing Roger Taney in Dred Scott? That has as much relevance as the repealed Naturalization Act Of 1790, so have at it. Citing such will get you just about nowhere, legally.
Subsequent Congresses have defined these children as citizens of the United States.
Yes, some have. And, this is within powers enumerated to Congress by the Constitution. Note what's missing - the key phrase in question: "natural-born citizen."
The same term used in the 14th amendment which you use to justify people born here to be natural born.
Huh? The only term that means "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution is "natural-born citizen." What are you going on about now, lol?
We have had many Presidential candidates (Romney, Goldwater) who were born outside the U.S. and no one had a problem with them.
There were controversies about the Constitutional eligiblity of every one of those former Presidential candidates. Would you like me to provide links for you, or would you like to give web search a spin? It's really neat!
It was understood because of existing laws.
Oh? How so? Where does any extant or applicable statute specifically address the Constitutional natural-born citizen requirement for the office of President? This, I've got to see.
Defining natural born does not violate anything in the Constitution.
Amazing, then, that no one seems to have done so in 220 years. Our lovely Congresstraitors have been conniving to remove the natural-born citizen requirement for over a decade. If it were so simple a process as voila! sneaking a bill into some session of Congress ... you really don't believe what you're writing here, do you? It's just too ridiculous.
The only reason Obama’s citizenship is in question is because he is thought to be born outside the U.S. and one of his parents was not an American citizen.
Well, I'll be darned. My breath hasn't been wasted, after all. Thanks for coming around to the Constitutional originalist point of view, that I've been expounding, here.
Question, if John McCain was not born a citizen of the United States, to which country was he born to? Panama? Is he actually Panamanian and someone didn’t tell us?
John McCain's US citizenship was in murky territory, right up until his 16th birthday, in 1952. He was made citizen via statute. McCain was not born stateless, as some hapless individuals periodically are, so you marinate on that for a bit, and see which country you think had any legal right to claim him at birth.