Your opinion on NCB isn't law, as much as want it to be. It's your long-winded, rehashed, repeated ad-nauseum opinion.He's right SatinDoll.
The fact that Naturalization law adopted in 1795 removed the phrase “natural born citizen” tells us that this phrase did not have the same meaning as the phrase “born a citizen”. Otherwise, why change the law after only five years?
Few years earlier, Hamilton proposed that the eligibility requirement for US Presidency includes the phrase “born a citizen”. Instead, John Jay’s proposal was adopted. In his letter to George Washington Jay proposed that eligibilty be given to “natural born Citizens”.
Eligibility requirement is a national security measure, a strong check preventing a person with dual allegiance from taking command of US military.
Neither Obama nor Cruz are eligible for US presidency.
“...Supreme Court Ruling...”
WOW! You sure talk like you think you know your business. Too bad you don’t.
“The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship. Below, are multiple quotations from various published literature which cogently establish that the Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights. That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed. My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.”
“FREDERICK VAN DYNE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE was an esteemed legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law. He provided unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.”
“Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent.”
“Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were “native-born citizens” of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case of Lynch v. Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case’s opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens. In his famous treatise, “Citizenship of the United States” (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1904), Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were “native-born citizens”. (See Van Dyne’s treatise at pgs. 6-7.)”
“Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being “native-born” as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the only element. As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that the holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.”
“In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the parents. However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory. But Van Dyne’s analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases is dictum.”
“He then refers to the “decision” in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter the “dictum” from the Slaughter-House Cases. Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court’s decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the dictum of the Slaughter-House Cases. In doing so, Van Dyne quotes (see pgs. 12-13) the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:”
“Very rarely, whilst doing research, does one come upon historical evidence that so perfectly establishes the point in question. Examine the last paragraph again:”
“The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
“The “decision” in Minor is twofold:”
“1) woman are equal citizens to men;”
“2) voting is not a right of citizenship.”
“The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn’t. Virginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as “halfway citizens” and she directly petitioned the Court for a determination which stated that women were equal citizens to men.”
“The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the US to citizen parents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this “class” of persons were “natives, or natural-born citizens”.”
“The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court’s decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.”
Let me give you a heads up on this business: born in the USA of US citizen parents has existed as an eligibility requirement since the beginning of the Republic. With President Chester A. Arthur, who hid the fact that he was born in the U.S.A. to a father who wasn’t a U.S. citizen even to the extent of burning all his private papers, it has been the norm.
The Democrats wanted desperately to control all three branches of government in 2008. They believed they had a winner with BHO2 because he was, they believed, a black man who American blacks would unequivocally vote for as a Democrat candidate. When the Party discovered that BHO2 had been born in Kenya, that is when their problems started accumulating.
They broke the law to acquire power.
Conservatives should not do the same. So, how long have you been flogging for the Progressives?