Replies

The point was to get SoConPubbie to realize that his point about there being no definition in the constitution was silly, because the constitution isn't a dictionary. Only one word is defined in that document, and that word is "Treason." The term "corruption of blood" appears in that section, but lo and behold, there is no definition for it in there either!

And as it has already been pointed out to you, on this thread alone, by xzins and others, there are and were multiple definitions concerning what "Natural Born" means both before, during, and after the lifetimes of the founders.

So which one do you think the Supreme Court of today will take and apply?

You've fixated on one definition and have been trying to make the case that it is the only definition. It is not.

There was no unanimous agreement about the definition among the founders either, if I am wrong, please prove it. If there were, they would have included it in the Constitution, much as you have already pointed out, the definition of Treason was included.

Furthermore, you're fixated on the idea that only your definition will and should be applied in the process to get "Natural Born" definied constitutionally.

The likelyhood of this occuring is slim to none given the current political environment.

You'd like the process to take into consideration ONLY original intent, which will never be the case, and cannot be the case given that for most issues, the realities of the issue can change over time. Am I saying that the constitution is a living document, no. There are issues that should never change (life being one of them), but I doubt you are going to find a plurality, much less a majority that will agree with your position that "Natural Born" has to mean 2 citizen parents at birth on any Court, much less Congress.

I'm telling y'all this is an exercise in futility.

The Marxist has set the " prec·e·dent "!

Nothing will come of any challenges to Senator Cruz's eligibility to serve as POTUS, should such a stupid challenge originate.

I'm getting weary of this for the time being, and I think this may very well be my last message of the day. To answer your question, I think if the issue is taken before the Supreme court today, the four liberals will definitely side with Obama, and the four conservatives may or may not split their vote. I should not be surprised at all if it is even unanimous in favor of the English Common law theory.

The legal system is simply too heavily polluted with a misunderstanding of the Wong Kim Ark ruling. A narrow interpretation of Wong Kim Ark regarding citizenship is correct. A Broad interpretation of Wong Kim Ark regarding "natural born citizenship" is not, but never the less that is predominantly how the legal system interprets it.

They are just wrong, but they have the power to ignore any criticism, so they don't care.

The politically easy answer is to make entry to citizenship very weak, and that is what they will do.

ONLY original intent

Original intent, as preserved in the Congressional Record of 1790 was Blackstone's use of the same expression. Since that is only 3 years removed from the penning of the Constitution, and since Washington presided over both, and since both House and Senate included those who were also at the Constitutional Convention, it is fairly safe to say that "natural born citizen" included either place of birth or blood descent.

And since blood descent has ALWAYS been a part of US law, then "natural born" does intend to include those who gain their citizenship from the citizenship of their parents.

ONLY original intent

Original intent, as preserved in the Congressional Record of 1790 was Blackstone's use of the same expression. Since that is only 3 years removed from the penning of the Constitution, and since Washington presided over both, and since both House and Senate included those who were also at the Constitutional Convention, it is fairly safe to say that "natural born citizen" included either place of birth or blood descent.

And since blood descent has ALWAYS been a part of US law, then "natural born" does intend to include those who gain their citizenship from the citizenship of their parents.