“They have made assumptions about the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. It’s a fair assumption, because the justices probably think the same way anyway.”
The 14th amendment concerns itself with Citizenship, particularily the citizenship of former slaves and their decendants, and not the Constitutional eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship for a president. In effect the 14th amendment has no bearing on the words written in the Constitution nearly 100 years before.
Although the term had/has a well known meaning in the 1700’s/1800’s there has been a great effort, even on this forum, to change the meaning in order to have it fit the known and/or speculated circumstances of Obama’s birth and parentage.
To date there has been no court case in the USSC challenging/clarifying the issue of the NBC requirement.....there hasn’t been a need to....because all Presidents (with the possible exception of Chester Arthur) have met the understood classic definition of born on the soil (jus solis) AND two citizen parents (jus sanguinis).
That Obama does not meet that definition provides the perfect opportunity to underline the meaning of NBC as understood and intended by the Founders when they wrote that unique requirement for the office of the President.
The COLB that OBama/Obama’s campaign posted online, is proof that he does not meet the eligibilty requirements as the Founders intended. The only remaining legitimate question is what to do about it?
Obama is certainly pinning his hopes on nothing being done until he has completed his Presidential (sic) term in office.
Although the term had/has a well known meaning in the 1700’s/1800’s there has been a great effort, even on this forum, to change the meaning in order to have it fit the known and/or speculated circumstances of Obama’s birth and parentage.
To date there has been no court case in the USSC challenging/clarifying the issue of the NBC requirement.....there hasn’t been a need to....because all Presidents (with the possible exception of Chester Arthur) have met the understood classic definition of born on the soil (jus solis) AND two citizen parents (jus sanguinis).
Thank you. I see a lot of efforts have been made recently to try to redefine what "natural born" citizenship means. When Vattel's definition is brought up and quoted word for word, it's dismissed as poorly translated or as irrelevant. I've even seen some attempts to describe it as "international law" when it's really "natural law" (how many people understand that term today?).
I do not believe citizenship itself, American citizenship, is being taught to today's population: either to children in schools, or to the population at large. The recent influx of illegal aliens and chain migration by their families seems to be rendering it irrelevant. If "being American" means merely squatting here and saluting the flag of a foreign country, who cares what "American citizenship" means, much less "natural born" American citizenship?
True pride in this country and its heritage is today dismissed as jingoism, unfortunately. So much can change in a generation. It only takes one generation to forget what freedom is. Today's voters are being persuaded that what is foreign is superior to what is American. I am still thinking of what Kristof wrote.