That video was intended as a primer, as I said. There is MUCH more you need to familiarize yourself with before you can engage in meaningful discussion. I was just trying to get you pointed in the right direction. There are court cases, law review articles, so much indeed.
I am not claiming anything, buy the way. I have no credentials to make valid claims of any sort. Others do however, and I suggest again, that you familiarize yourself with the facts of law, the scholarship on the subject, past court cases, legislative history, etc.
Until you can speak with a modicum of familiarity with the subject matter, I suggest that it is you, not me, who is the smoke blower here.
But to a few of your specific comments. There have been a few court cases where the subject of “natural born” citizenship has been discussed, but none of these cases are directly on point for the very fundamental reason that this would be a case of first impression. All previous cases have discussed citizenship in general, rather than the very specific type called “natural born”.
The question is: what did this phrase mean to the framers, and on this question there is little doubt: it meant the children of citizens born within the United States. In fact, there was a rather specific notion that natural born citizenship was patrilineal. The citizenship of mothers didn’t count. Isn’t that quaint.
This is a Constitutional matter, and as you probably either know or perhaps could guess, many of the terms used in the Constitution are NOT defined therein. That is because they were terms well understood by the people of the time, and especially by the framers. It’s not our fault if language has drifted and terms fallen from use. We simply cannot throw up our hands and say “duh”, as you would seemingly have us do.
We will find the meanings of these terms in the writings of the time, and they have been found. We know very well what the term “natural born” means, and as you quite rightly point out, the meaning is not to be created by a resolution of Congress, or even by enactment of a statute law.
I want to reiterate that I did not offer up that you-tube presentation as “proof” of anything. I offered it up as a starting point for you as you begin the self-educational process. As an investor, as well as an innately curious person, I always suggest very strongly that individuals “DYOR”.
That’s “do your own research”. Until you have done that, all you have is smoke.
I fear we are seeing the contrast between the public school or yesteryear and public school of more recent times...
Hate to see what the future brings with the newer teachers I’ve seen coming into the classroom....Cookie cutters who don’t know how to think let along how to teach young folks to think.... Too busy teaching to the test...WHAT to think.
That's one of the most unusual posts ever addressed to me. You spent sentence after sentence making the case that precise definition of "natural born citizen" has never been defined by the courts, but constantly preach to me to do research into all the scholarship that has, as yet, failed to define precisely what the term means.
The term hasn't been defined by the courts, up to the SCOTUS, so it hasn't been defined.
And would you care to point out to me what rights of citizenship anchor babies are now denied? And they will not be denied the opportunity to run for president, either, as I discussed with another poster in my #313.
The video had some good background, but could lead some to think this question has been answered. It hasn't, and mentioning the Senate resolution on McCain as it was mentioned was very misleading.
I think we might agree that the term has never been precisely defined, so no one can say what it would or would not prevent or allow in 2008 and beyond. But I'd sure put my money on the anchor babies being able to run for president.