You wrote “Just to cut through all the post-modern bullshiite, a “Natural Born American Citizen” is someone born to two American citizens on territory subject to American jurisdiction. No dual citizenship. No equivocation. Obama had the choice upon reaching his majority of choosing Indonesian, British, Kenyan, or American* citizenship. a “Natural Born Citizen” could have no such choice, being exclusively American.”
That is incorrect. Please see the following:
James Madison: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”
John Bingham: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”
Comments from Lynch v. Clarke, 1844: “Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
Comments from the SCOTUS ruling U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark. 1898: “Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth”
The U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”
History, legislative opinion and case law all disagree with you.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”
. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.” i.e. not a "natural born citizen."
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
I have no quarrel with your interpretation of the above. My REQUEST is that the interpretations upon which not even Team Obama has hung its shabby hat, be verified by the Courts.
There is absolutely no difference between citizens of the United States, save one peculiar requirement of the Constitution: i.e., that the President be a "Natural Born Citizen. " Since the Constitution carefully spells out the citizenship qualifications for every other elected federal office, and reserves the term "Natural Born" for the Presidency, I and quite a few of my fellow citizens demand clarification beyond interpretation.
When the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Charles Evan Hughes, was mentioned as a candidate for Presidency, his name was removed from the list because he was not a "Natural Born Citizen." He did not object. And I assure you, he was quite familiar with Wong Kim Ark.
My problem with your interpretation is that by following its logic, the children born tonight in LA to illegal alien parents would be deemed "Natural Born Citizens," and eligible to be President. My interpretation is that they are (a) not citizens of the United States, but whatever country of which their criminal parents remain indisputably citizens. (b) Are being granted improper documentation by generous custom rather than law, and(c)children and parents ought to be deported.
You are entitled to your interpretation of case law, so is Team Obama, and so by the Risen Christ, am I. Let us all meet in a court brave enough to try the matter on its merits. I shall defend your right to speak on the matter to the death, and should I be adjudged wrong, I request return of the favor.