I’ve issued that challenge over and over and birthers *never* have the goods. Their sources are either so old that they were considering the situation before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), or so new that they came up with it specifically to deny Obama the presidency.
Seeing you crow about that, I just had to take a moment. My moments are quite rare as I work a 70 hour week, have a house and yard to take care of, a driveway to shovel, a wife and two small children. Even so, I ran a quick search and came upon this from The Washington Law Reporter, 1903. The writer specifically states that native-born (born in country to non-citizen parents) are not natural-born. He says natural-born is entirely and solely dependent on the citizenship of the parents.
So, there's your post-1898 source that you claimed nobody could find.
I've told you before that I worried that my now six-year-old son (i.e. pre-Obama) would not be eligible for the presidency since his mother was just a permanent resident. You blew off that comment, and those of several others here, claiming we made it all up post-2008 to support our idea. Well I most strenuously object to you calling me and other Freepers in good standing liars to our faces.
Now go away. And don't you dare to ever claim again that nobody has ever quoted sources published after ratification of the 14th and before 2008.
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.
Alexander Porter Morse. Albany Law Journal
WASHINGTON, D.C., March, 19o4
Thanks again patlin for locating the document.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2462598/posts?q=1&;page=1
WildSnail wrote: “I ran a quick search and came upon this from The Washington Law Reporter, 1903.”
The question he’s considering is the “eligibility to the office of the presidency of a child born of American parents at sea or in a foreign territory”. He concluded that they are natural born citizens, not that the native born are not, certainly not post 14’th Amendment.
The other post-WKA opinion Vattel-birthers try to cite is Breckinridge Long’s 1916 piece arguing that Charles Evans Hughes, who resigned from the SCOTUS to run from president, was ineligible. Long got around the 14’th Amendment by arguing:
“Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
WildSnail wrote: “I’ve told you before that I worried that my now six-year-old son (i.e. pre-Obama) would not be eligible for the presidency since his mother was just a permanent resident. You blew off that comment, and those of several others here, claiming we made it all up post-2008 to support our idea.”
Your recollection of a worry? And why didn’t you just look it up in /Black’s Law Dictionary/, the one the U.S. Supreme Court most frequently cites, as West Publishing wants us all to know? Was it so important to you that your son not be eligible that you played constitutional scholar and searched for justification to disqualify him?