[Tublecane]

“If the thought of an Anchor Baby President doesn’t inspire horror in you...I posit that you are on the wrong forum. And by forum, I mean FR”

Posit noted. Let me posit that anyone who thinks the decision whether or not to elect an anchor baby should be taken out of the hands of the populace probably doesn’t believe in our form of government, and certainly doesn’t like the Constitution as written.

[DiogenesLamp]

Posit noted. Let me posit that anyone who thinks the decision whether or not to elect an anchor baby should be taken out of the hands of the populace probably doesn’t believe in our form of government, and certainly doesn’t like the Constitution as written.

They like it very well, they just don't believe it should be ignored when people disagree with it, and followed when they don't. That "living Constitution" crap is the realm of our enemies. In Conservative circles, We believe it means what it says until it is changed by amendment.

The meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as understood by our founders in regards to federal citizenship within this nation, is that of being born with exclusive loyalty to this and only this nation.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the distinction our founders drew between federal and state citizenship. Here is a portion of a newspaper article purportedly written by James Madison in 1811.

And here is a link to the entire page of that Newspaper, if you want to read the whole thing in context.

By the standards in place in 1787 when Article II was created, only the Children of citizens can be regarded as "natural born citizens." The Children of British loyalists of that time period were explicitly excluded from Citizenship after the War of Independence, even though they were born here.