Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students

Daily Caller ^ | 5/9/13 | Charles C. Johnson

[Nachum]

Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the school’s smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.

Cruz was a “terrific student,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. “He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.”

“He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses,” Dershowitz added.

Dershowitz also gave a high estimate of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who has decidedly different political views than Cruz.

Dershowitz says he and Cruz would often debate issues presented in Dershowitz’s criminal law class. “Cruz’s views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting,” the law professor explained. “I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses.”

[Nero Germanicus]

For your consideration: United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
[An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’

…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

---

Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons BORN within the United States are ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZENS’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those BORN within the United States are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was BORN in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was BORN in Hawaii, he is a ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

Voeltz v Obama, Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person BORN in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint

[DiogenesLamp]

Okay. So Lysander Spooner (who by the way is probably the weakest authority in the entire list of at least 30 quotes,

What, you consider the Marquis De Lafayette's Aid to be a good authority? Or what some Spanish guy said? You are a laugh a minute!

I debated about even leaving him in, but hey, he's still better than most of the crap you post) left out the extremely small exception of children of diplomats.

So, if he left that out, then it demonstrates that his is a short-hand definition, and not a complete one. This is the general rule throughout history, yet you seize on these incomplete definitions all the time so as to pretend they support you. Kinda like you did with John Bingham, and the Naturalization act of 1790.

I notice you don't have much else to say.

Quality, not quantity. You've got the quantity side covered.

I find it very difficult to believe you've actually talked yourself into believing this crap. You've seen the evidence.

Yes I have. All the stuff you call "evidence" comes from post hoc Lawyers not connected with the Deliberations. All the stuff *I* have traces right back to the men who created and ratified the Constitution. Apart from that, Your theory yields idiotic (Anchor babies) and Paradoxical (Slaves and Indians) results, and the founders were not so stupid.

You know that your claim doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not really. You can hardly make a case without twisting somebody's words, and ignoring all of the straightforward, untwisted evidence.

You sound like you are trying to convince yourself, you certainly aren't convincing me. You talk about twisting words, just after you tried to argue that the "Sons of Freeholders" isn't referring to citizens? Chutzpah you've got. Intellectual honesty? Not a drop.

[Texas Fossil]

You waste my time and yours with lengthy cut and pastes.

I have read the relevant court opinions and much other data.

1. citizen and “natural born citizen” are not the same thing.

2. there is a questionable basis for the “anchor baby” citizenship where neither parent is a US citizen.

3. It was understood from the founding of the nation that divided loyalty was not compatible with being a “natural born citizen”

4. In order to be a natural born citizen the parents must both be citizens at the time of the child's birth. If you look at the case of President Chester A. Arthur and the lengths he went to in order to hide his birth information, it was clear that he knew he was ineligible to be President because his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, I hear you fine. At some level of word-meaning purity, you may even be correct. But that's not the reality we live in. In the real presidential-election world of 2013, it is the courts who define words, make the rules, define the playing field if you will - not you or I. And the courts don't care about NBC arguments.

This appears to be true, but it has nothing to do with my point. The courts are a mess, and i've had little respect for them my entire life. Fear? Yes. Respect? Not at all.

That being said, if anyone can gain "standing" (a Magical state of Grace in our "Holy" courts.) I suspect they can seriously torpedo Cruz by pointing to the Supreme Court Decision in Rogers v Bellei. It is an incredible stretch to believe that someone who could have been stripped of citizenship is the same as a "natural citizen" who cannot be. Lawyers have made wider and more ridiculous stretches, but I wouldn't count on it as a given.

So stop complaining about the playing field and play to win. Penalizing our own team by needlessly excluding Cruz makes no sense at all.

I like Cruz quite a lot, but are we supposed to be a nation of Laws, or Men? Also, with the prospect of an opposition challenge on the basis of Rogers v Bellei, might we not be concerned about the possibility that our candidate could be torpedoed during the General with too little time left to get another? Not a good situation to be placed in.

[Nero Germanicus]

You’re free to believe whatever you want to believe. If what I’ve posted is of no interest to you, that’s fine with me.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

“Yeah but Citizen of the United States at Birth is the same as Natural-born Citizen”

That is absolutely insane. They are not the same.

[edge919]

So to say Luria in any way says that Minor backed up your completely bogus "definition" of natural born citizen is totally dishonest. It's absolute BS.

Nonsense. IT's very direct. It makes a specific reference to Article II in the Constitution and it speaks specifically about the rights of citizenship (remember, most Obots claim Minor isn't about citizenship, so this quote proves that wrong too).

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

Here's how Minor defined NATIVE citizens:

all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ...

Natives and natural-born citizens are BOTH exclusively defined in Minor as born in the country to citizen parents. What is conspicuously missing in Luria is ANY reference to Wong Kim Ark.

Gee... do ya think that might be because Luria didn't have to do with someone who was born a citizen in the United States, like Wong was, but who was a naturalized citizen?

Minor was born in the United States. If what you're saying made any sense, then they shouldn't be quoting Minor or Elk v. Wilkins. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Once again: Birther makes claims. Claims are total BS.

Nonsense. You just proved my point for me.p

[Jeff Winston]

What, you consider the Marquis De Lafayette's Aid [sic] to be a good authority?

I certainly do. The Marquis de Lafayette served as a served as a Major-General in the Revolutionary War under George Washington. He fought Cornwallis at Yorktown. He was a personal friend of our first SIX Presidents, and is known to have gone and visited them personally. He was declared a natural born citizen of the State of Maryland, so he had damn good reason to know what the term meant. And Lafayette's aide was with by his side as he spent time with several of those Presidents.

So yes. The Marquis de Lafayette, and his aide, were in a damn good position to know exactly what the Founders and Framers meant by "natural born citizen."

[notted]

This is an interesting thread , but it strikes me as a moot court.

Those like myself, may hold audience to ideas, we neither have experience, nor an education capable of disputing the arguments refined here or those sifted from, the history of the Constitution.

Many, like myself, only grasp dimly, how the constitution extrapolates natural laws and establishes the distinction of right and wrong. Therefor, I ask both of you; a simpler question and hope, both of you will respond with words understandable to a layman and in the fashion, of a sympathetic teacher.

Are we, (I), sovereign? Having rights independent of the will of the state?

This question is meant to flush out the contrast between, independent action and social action.

More to the point, does an individual; (I), have rights which supersede social contracts, or are we; (I), subservient to a (State)?

I believe this question relates directly to the question of Presidential eligibility. It is my primitive understanding that the act of voting, is the transference of authority to an agent, in this case the executive branch, headed by the President. The President derives his authority from a collection of individual sovereign citizen.

Therefor, the authority of that agent, the (POTUS) is derived from a true sovereign, inviolately, established in a the Constitution, as having a defined, criteria; One of those criteria is being, a natural born citizen.

Am I to believe that, I, a sovereign citizen, should not be included in the determination of what constitutes that meaning?

The Constitution is written in relatively simple language and can be understood by contemporary citizens, it does not strike me as a code to be deciphered by a sibyl, but plainly spoken to those, like myself, who wish to participate in self-governance.

The authority derived from the sovereign is vested in POTUS, and is in dispute by many sovereigns, including (myself), whom rest their certainty of self-governence on the words of the Constitution, its meaning and history which still resinates in a common vernacularly.

Whom, do you believe should be entrusted to make decisions regarding the epistemology of the words in the constitution? And whom do you believe, inherit those rights which constitute its form? Whom do the consequences of these ideas mostly effect, if not ourselves?

I beg your pardon, for my lack of clarity, I hope you can see through the fog of language and address my concerns.

[edge919]

It’s no mystery that the founders considered those persons who fought on the side of the U.S. against Great Britain in the Revolution would be “considered as” natural-born citizens. It’s the whole reason for the clauses in Article II “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” and “and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States” ... the 14 years represented the period of time between 1776 and 1789 when the Constituton was adopted ... time that was spent untangling from the British monarchy.

[Jeff Winston]

Those like myself, may hold audience to ideas, we neither have experience, nor an education capable of disputing the arguments refined here or those sifted from, the history of the Constitution.

notted, you may not have experience or education, but you can check the things said on both sides, and objectively, dispassionately weigh and see which check out, and which don't. And I encourage you to do exactly that.

Are we, (I), sovereign? Having rights independent of the will of the state?

Here's what our Founders believed:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

You asked:

Am I to believe that, I, a sovereign citizen, should not be included in the determination of what constitutes that meaning?

There are several considerations that I think are relevant to your question.

First, when the Framers wrote the Constitution, they were writing what was (they hoped) to become the fundamental law of the new country. They had very specific meanings in mind for each phrase that they wrote. They had specific rules in mind for how the country was going to be run, and they put those rules before the People, in the hope that the People would approve those rules.

I do not believe that they intended for later generations to come along and simply interpret those rules to mean something very different from what they originally mean.

If a Constitution can simply be reinterpreted later to mean something different, then it's not really a solid law. It would simply be whatever a popular vote wanted it to mean at any particular time.

That said:

1) I think they intended to write, and did write, the Constitution in language that you and I and the rest of our citizens could understand. In this way, they intended to include all interested citizens in the Constitutional process. (I will come back to this point in a moment.)

As you rightly said:

The Constitution is written in relatively simple language and can be understood by contemporary citizens, it does not strike me as a code to be deciphered by a sibyl, but plainly spoken to those, like myself, who wish to participate in self-governance.

2) They provided a means whereby We the People could CHANGE the rules that were in effect. They provided a means whereby We the People can CHANGE the Constitution. And we've done so before, on more than two dozen occasions.

3) I do not believe they intended to give us a government-run nanny state. This is basically what birthers are arguing for: That the Founders did, or should have, restricted We the People from EVER using our judgment to elect someone whose parents weren't citizens at the time of their birth.

This idea certainly seems nanny-statish to me.

And in fact, the god they worship (Monsieur Vattel of Switzerland) was a nanny-state kind of guy. He believed and taught that the government should be able to control religion. Vattel believed and taught that the government should essentially regard the talents and skills of the country's people as an asset belonging to that country and that government, and that they had a perfect right to use force to prevent a valuable skilled worker from leaving the country. Vattel believed and taught that only the elites and the military should be allowed to keep and bear arms. No Second Amendment rights for the riff-raff such as you and me.

So the idea of restricting the People from EVER choosing a President whose parents were non-citizen immigrants seems to be of more or less the same spirit.

Now, to return what I mentioned earlier.

There are two possible ways a term such as "natural born citizen" could be looked at.

It might have a technical, legal meaning. And it might have a popular meaning.

You've already noted that the Constitution seems to be written for the People to understand. Others, including the US Supreme Court, have made the same observation. In fact, to my understanding, it is the official position of the Supreme Court that the Constitution is generally written in understandable language. Yes, there are a few legal terms in it. But on the whole, it's written to be understood by you and me.

So we would expect "natural born citizen" to mean what most people understood the term to mean.

In fact, if there is any difference in meaning between what the writers of the Constitution intended, and what the people in the States who ratified the Constitution thought they were approving, which meaning is in force?

I think it should be clear that the meaning that was voted into law was the meaning as understood by those who ratified the Constitution. So we could well ask, again: What did those who ratified the Constitution understand the term "natural born citizen" to mean?

Let's suppose for a moment that those who wrote the Constitution sat in some smoky back room and said, among themselves, "Ha! We don't mean here what most people understand "natural born citizen" to mean. We mean what this Swiss guy Vattel thought a citizen should be."

There's not the slightest SHRED of evidence that they did. But even if they had, the Constitution wouldn't mean what the writers said it meant, in some smoky back room.

It would mean what the people who VOTED IT INTO LAW believed it meant, and what they believed they were voting into law.

Most words and phrases don't change that much over the course of a couple of centuries.

In fact, a lot of people today still read the King James Bible, in the exact same words that were written over 400 years ago.

That's getting close to twice as long ago as the Constitution.

And yes, a few words - a very few - have changed their meaning somewhat.

For example, "conversation" now means what you say. Apparently, in King James' day, it included your actions as well as your words.

But (aside from some minor variations such as "thou" changing to "you," and the fact that we dropped the -eth's and -est's from the end of verbs - those changes are few and far between.

So if we want to know what "natural born citizen" meant to most people in 1787, it probably meant pretty much what most people think it means today.

And if you stop and ask 100 people what it means, the vast majority of them will say "Gee... I guess it means 'born a citizen,'" or "Gee... I suppose it means 'born in the US.'"

Some people will tell you that anyone born in America can grow up to be President.

Now because of all the recent birther propaganda, you might get a FEW people who would say they think it takes citizen parents.

But if you have asked the question 10 years ago, to 100 people, I doubt you would have found more than 1 out of the 100 who would've said it took citizen parents.

So that kind of common sense tells us that "natural born citizen" probably meant "born a citizen" or "born in the US."

Now, again: We have, possibly, two kinds of meanings. A legal meaning, and a popular meaning.

If these two meanings should be at odds, then we have a conflict.

But the fact is, virtually every legitimate legal authority in the early United States who ever spoke on the issue, and certainly all of the most authoritative ones, said "natural born citizen" and Presidential eligibility meant "born a citizen," or "born in the United States."

So there IS no conflict between the legal and popular meanings of the term.

I've probably gone beyond your original question. But I hope I've said some helpful things.

[notted]

My regrets for the labored questions.

Thank you for your post, You addressed my ignorance without ridicule.

As far as Birthers go, you may be right, I am a spectator, however, questions regarding, fraud and or forgery, may very well end up bringing down the President, after all. That is if he can survive charges of treason or dereliction of duty regarding the Benghazi hearings, IMO.

[DiogenesLamp]

I certainly do. The Marquis de Lafayette served as a served as a Major-General in the Revolutionary War under George Washington. He fought Cornwallis at Yorktown.

So no doubt by this standard, Baron von Steuben is a constitutional expert? Do you honestly expect anyone to accept this kind of crap? His MILITARY accomplishments are irrelevant to the creation of article II.

He was a personal friend of our first SIX Presidents, and is known to have gone and visited them personally.

Martha Washington had SEX with George, but that doesn't make her a Constitutional expert.

He was declared a natural born citizen of the State of Maryland, so he had damn good reason to know what the term meant.

Glad you brought that up. Maryland DEEMED him to be a "natural born citizen" and "his heirs male forever." Nothing in there about needing to be born anywhere. The status (according to the legislature of Maryland) would pass by Jus Sanguinus descent.

It still doesn't make his aide knowledgable regarding "natural citizen."

And Lafayette's aide was with by his side as he spent time with several of those Presidents.

And certainly all they talked about was the meaning of "natural citizen." Your theory that Lafayette's Aide is an "authority" is utterly ridiculous, but it is the sort of straw you usually grasp.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, individuals have "natural rights" independent of the state. Thomas Jefferson explicitly acknowledges this in the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

"Natural rights" are at the center of this discussion. Part of the problem with discussing them is the different references by which they are measured.

By English Principles, the King rules by divine right. It is "natural" that he be King (always by blood descent) and that other people do his bidding. Therefore, anyone born on his soil is a "natural" servant to him.

But by the Standards which Jefferson used (Derived from Vattel) "Natural" means something very different. It means that each individual has inherent freedoms that do not derive from a Corporeal government, but are instead a characteristic of their nature. Among them being the ability to keep the fruits of their labor and the ability to defend themselves.

Whom, do you believe should be entrusted to make decisions regarding the epistemology of the words in the constitution?

The entire body of people who live under it. Jeff and company would prefer that we only listen to the words of Lawyers, and simply accept their words as binding on all matters constitutional. It has been my observation that these people simply behave like aristocratic "priests" of law, often making pronouncements that have no basis in common sense or a coherent philosophy.

I'm with Jefferson on this.

...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Screw the lawyers and their sophist arguments.

[notted]

Thank you for your reply. I hope your explanation wins out in the end, however, my thoughts are nearing the limits of my understanding.

Kind regards.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Founders didn't intend to set up a nanny state for us. Do you think they should have?

For you, certainly. You are obviously unable to process data correctly and you ought to be a ward of the state.

[Jeff Winston]

Lafayette's aide wrote a BOOK in which he stated exactly what the requirement was for somebody to be eligible to be President in the United States:

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

And he said that all it took was being born in the United States.

Once again, you spin BS.

A man is writing a book in which he sets forth the Constitutional requirement for being President of the United States. He has direct, personal access to not one, not two, but ALL SIX of our first SIX Presidents.

If he had any question about what the term meant, or what the qualification was, he would've asked one of his friends. And they would've told him.

All the more so, since the Maryland State legislature declared Lafayette to be a "natural born citizen" of that State. If he had the slightest question about what the term meant, he would've asked them, and they would've told him.

So YES, the Marquis de Lafayatte and his aide were in a damn good position to know exactly what the term "natural born citizen" meant.

You try to dismiss those who were in a position to know, those who wrote general, legitimate works on our Constitution, including our greatest legal experts, while you inflate the credentials of people like David Ramsay, who shows no sign of having been especially close to any of the major Framers, and whose 6-page treatise written for the purpose of a sore-loser campaign was voted down 36 to 1 by our first House, including the Father of the Constitution and 5 other signers of the Constitution.

You're a complete hypocrite.

Martha Washington had SEX with George, but that doesn't make her a Constitutional expert.

Martha didn't write a book explaining the qualification for President, you jerk. If she had, you can bet she was in a position to ask her husband what the qualifications for President were.

[DiogenesLamp]

Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were all natural born citizens with two US citizen parents.

Your point doesn't speak to the issue. The founders came forth with an idea of general principles. No one ever suggested that it would be infallible, but the thinking behind it is that it would improve probabilities.

The practice of Marrying Foreign Royalty into other Royal Families was well known at the time. The intent was to gain influence in the affairs of other nations so as to look after the interests of the Origin country.

By requiring people to be the offspring of American citizens, the only country who's interests would be looked after was our own. Not so with people merely born here, and such issues were made manifest with all the troubles which Madison had with Brits Pretending to be Americans during the lead up to the War of 1812.

[DiogenesLamp]

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth.

And how does one be a "natural born citizen" without this law?

The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

And this is a violation of English Common law. Common law holds that any child of the Marriage is the child of the Husband for all legal purposes.

Are we now going to try to have it both ways? The parts of the Common law which agree with our desired outcome are okay, but we are going to ignore the parts which disagree?

Any intellectual honesty left over there?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah but Citizen of the United States at Birth is the same as Natural-born Citizen and nobody genetically inherits divided loyalty. That would develop over the course of one’s life. Infants have no awareness of loyalty.

Again, "citizenship at birth" is NOT the same as "natural born citizenship." The Court ruling in Rogers v Bellei demonstrates this conclusively. A "natural born citizen" can't lose his citizenship as a result of failing to comply with a law.