- after all of your grand-standing, quoting Acts and Rulings that deal with naturalization, and such phrases as "born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," seemingly ACKNOWLEDGING that Obama was born OUTSIDE of the US...
- hanging your hat on phrases like "is declared to be a citizen of the United States," VS something with TEETH, like "is declared to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States" -- which we NEED, but which doesn't exist ...
- referencing your primary arguments from the 14th Amendment which was ratified by LESS than 3/5 of the 37 State Legislatures at the time it was codified, instead of 3/4 of the states as REQUIRED by the Constitution (now that's a completely different discussion there) ...
- ignoring the British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth"...
- intermingling "Jus soli" variations of "Citizen," "Native Born Citizen," "Natural Born Citizen," "Citizen by Birth," etc, while picking "Jus sanguinis" parts of Acts that clearly state things like: "provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States." Pulling parts from different Act from different eras...
- blowing off State Dept's FAMs, saying they're "just a Manual," even though they use strong legal references to carry out the nation's Constitutional and Statutory Immigration actions. People are denied or granted citizenship based upon the FAM's EVERYDAY.
- minimizing that Congress has tried to change the NBC issues of Article Two 26 times in the past 140 years, and never getting it out of Committee...
- knowing that before Chester Arthur, who almost surely & fraudulently hid his dual citizenship status while he was VP, the last "foreign born" President and VP help office more than 170 years ago....
- shooting down historical works our forefathers, like Vattel and Blackston, would have certainly used in their law practice and/or as reference to construct wording for the Constitution ... the SAME references that Justice Thomas uses to help interpret the Framer's actions...
“... and then to top it off, the LEGAL Reference YOU use to define ‘natural born citizen’ is Dictionary.com”
The essential core of the law is not historical context, as you seem to imply. There is a deeper level. Ultimately, all legal arguments must come down to semantics, since laws are written in words. There’s no escaping it.
"after all of your grand-standing, quoting Acts and Rulings that deal with naturalization, and such phrases as 'born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,' seemingly ACKNOWLEDGING that Obama was born OUTSIDE of the US"
I have never held any other position than that Obama may have been born outside the US. Even so, my original belief was that that did not matter as his mother was an American. I have since learned - long before this thread - that US Citizenship at birth is not - quite - so automatic, and that Obama may very well not qualify as his mother was of insufficient are to meet the residency requirements. That is the entire history of my position. The 'Acts and Rulings' that I have quoted do not just deal with naturalization, but also citizenship at birth. If you want to see grandstanding, look in the mirror.
"hanging your hat on phrases like "is declared to be a citizen of the United States," VS something with TEETH, like 'is declared to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States' -- which we NEED, but which doesn't exist "
I maintain that there is no difference between 'born...citizens' and 'natural born citizens' in the Law or COTUS. I have supported my position with SC rulings that show that the SC has historically agreed with that definition, comments from former Attys. General to that end, and so forth.
"referencing your primary arguments from the 14th Amendment which was ratified by LESS than 3/5 of the 37 State Legislatures at the time it was codified, instead of 3/4 of the states as REQUIRED by the Constitution (now that's a completely different discussion there)""
So, now, the 14th Amendment doesn't count any more? As I recall, the 14th Amendment was included in some of your" arguments.
"ignoring the British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): 'Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth'"
I am not ignoring it so much as declaring it to be irrelevant. Dual citizenship is not an issue. British law has no bearing. I do not dispute that Obama likely holds or held British citizenship which turned into Kenya citizenship. I dispute that that automatically disqualifies him from being POTUS. I dispute that, if born in the US, he does not hold US citizenship from birth as well. I am fully cognizant of irregularities in his documentation. I hold the position that if he was born in Kenya he is not a natural born citizen of the US and most likely is an illegal alien and is not Constitutionally eligible for the office of Senator (non citizen) OR President (non natural born citizen).
"intermingling 'Jus soli' variations of 'Citizen,' 'Native Born Citizen,' 'Natural Born Citizen,' 'Citizen by Birth,' etc, while picking 'Jus sanguinis' parts of Acts that clearly state things like: 'provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.' Pulling parts from different Act from different eras"
Nope. My argument is that all those 'Jus soli' variations are just that, variations of the same thing. That has yet to be refuted. My position on 'fathers' conditions like the one you mentioned is that they were clearly intended to mean 'citizen fathers' where not explicitly so stated, but that gender neutral language has been substituted since at least the 14th Amendment. I don't think that argument has been disputed thus far, and I have only included it to avoid confusion because 'father' does appear in many of the older laws and it is Obama's father that was the alien. Gender based distinctions simply do not any longer apply.
"blowing off State Dept's FAMs, saying they're 'just a Manual,' even though they use strong legal references to carry out the nation's Constitutional and Statutory Immigration actions. People are denied or granted citizenship based upon the FAM's EVERYDAY."
Are you claiming that that referenced manual (which, incidentally, uses the language 'may not') is superior in the Law to SC rulings? If people are being denied solely on the basis of that document then they have very good cases and should pursue them. Where that manual references other work, then arguments are based on those other works, and not on the manual.
"minimizing that Congress has tried to change the NBC issues of Article Two 26 times in the past 140 years, and never getting it out of Committee"
I haven't directly referenced this point before, but since you asked: So What? To what purpose? Were they trying to make more people eligible, or were they going the other way and trying to make fewer people eligible? They failed in no small measure because you can't amend the Constitution that way. It would have to make it a lot further than 'out of committee.'
"knowing that before Chester Arthur, who almost surely & fraudulently hid his dual citizenship status while he was VP, the last 'foreign born' President and VP help office more than 170 years ago"
There has never been a non white (except maybe Lincoln who might have had a melungeon grandmother, a 'fact' that he almost surely and fraudulently hid), female, openly gay, Mormon, etc., President either, but that doesn't mean there never will be. I am not responsible for any fraud that Arthur may have committed, nor do I cite it as precedent for anything.
"shooting down historical works our forefathers, like Vattel and Blackston, would have certainly used in their law practice and/or as reference to construct wording for the Constitution ... the SAME references that Justice Thomas uses to help interpret the Framer's actions"
I didn't shoot down those works, I simply stated that "All these 'Natural Law' and 'English Common Law' arguments are tenuous at best." That would be because there are existing US laws that take precedence. That does not mean that Blackstone will never have any bearing on anything. It simply means that it is not superior to actual US Law, where such law exists.
"and then to top it off, the LEGAL Reference YOU use to define 'natural born citizen' is Dictionary.com"
Yep. You got me. I used a dictionary to find the definition of a term. This undermines my entire argument, and clearly you are right, because I used a dictionary. Even though Dictionary.com's definitions come from Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English and Random House Unabridged Dictionary we still can not say that words actually mean what the dictionary says they do. Uh huh.