Replies

Your desire to second guess the Founders makes me question whether you believe in a so-called “living Constitution,” a position which is clearly not conservative. Such a position really means one can change the interpretation of the Constitution with circumstances to make it say what we want. That is a very dangerous path, allowing judges to decide the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean at a particular time, something all good Conservatives must oppose. Once again, if you don’t like what it says, amend it, but don’t claim it says what you want when it doesn’t.

You are not exchanging messages with a novice. It is not MY SIDE which is second guessing the founders. I have done enough research to realize that the custom and laws of the time period were that the Child is always of the same nationality as his Father,(even for the English) and that his citizenship is a derivative thereof. If the Father changes citizenship, the child also does so automatically. (As does the Wife) Even the Laws of England, which your side partially quotes ad nauseum requires that the Parents must be in ACTUAL Obedience of the King. (Which I interpret as intending to live and reside within the Kings Obedience, i.e. become British. Even then, the Children cannot inherit any lands owned by the Parents)

The NORMAL way of life among human families of the period is that Father and Mother should live together and raise the child with a love of family and country. This pseudo-bastard Obama is completely outside the norm as understood by the founders. By all rights, he should have grown up in Kenya with his father, but when the left is involved, what is natural gets twisted and becomes sick. (There is a reason why the Latin word for left is "sinistra" (sinister.) )

I have a counter situation, in this country, to offer you. Suppose a child is born on US soil to two citizen parents (not particularly patriotic citizens, but US citizens none the less). They move to another country within a few months of the child’s birth, and the child is raised overseas, with whatever extreme ideas the parents hold. The child returns to the US an adult, at the age of 35. Fourteen years later, age 49, he runs for president. Now, undoubtedly this was not the sort of man the Founders would have envisioned as president. However, unacceptable as this man may be, he is legally eligible to run.

Again, he meets the TECHNICAL requirements, but completely violates the Spirit. * Even so, this proposed hypothetical citizen has a better claim on eligibility than does Obama, because NEITHER of Obama's Fathers was ever an American Citizen. He has NEVER been raised by an AMERICAN FATHER.

Now you may argue that the achieved result would be the same, but it overlooks the fact that the Founders could only do their Best to filter it out, and that under extreme circumstances their efforts may very well break down. The best they could hope for is to set forth a rule that will work in MOST circumstances, not all. As Madison had written of the convention regarding what part of the common law was to be recognized: "If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution. "

* As I mentioned before: You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.

I have done enough research to realize that the custom and laws of the time period were that the Child is always of the same nationality as his Father,(even for the English) and that his citizenship is a derivative thereof. If the Father changes citizenship, the child also does so automatically. (As does the Wife) Even the Laws of England, which your side partially quotes ad nauseum requires that the Parents must be in ACTUAL Obedience of the King. (Which I interpret as intending to live and reside within the Kings Obedience, i.e. become British. Even then, the Children cannot inherit any lands owned by the Parents)

First, I apologize for saying you hadn't addressed the question - I read your other post and missed this one. However, you haven't really answered whether you believe in a "living Constitution."

Are you claiming that because the Founders believed citizenship followed the father, that we should still do so today?

Even disregarding that they felt "born on the soil" was sufficient (usual exceptions) for natural born citizenship, note that "citizenship follows the father" was NOT in the Constitution, so it can be and has been changed by our naturalization statutes. "Citizenship of the father only" certainly can't be held to apply to 1961, and trying that would get you laughed out of court.

Even the Laws of England, which your side partially quotes ad nauseum requires that the Parents must be in ACTUAL Obedience of the King. (Which I interpret as intending to live and reside within the Kings Obedience, i.e. become British.

The key point is that it is not your interpretation which counts. English courts have interpreted it, (as have American courts for "legiance" or jurisdiction) differently. And that is what controls.

You keep talking about "technicalities" which makes it appear you just want everything the way you want it, and don't realize that laws rest on some very technical definitions. I may not always like the law, I may not like the way it is interpreted or applied, but I recognize that laws are a foundation of our republic. One has to go through a process to change them, or those in power will change them as they desire. We see some of that now to my dismay, but even in these dark days, the law has some constraints on what 0bama can do, what his administration can do. Allow someone to declare it all "technalities" and see what you'd get - much worse.