Courts can remove ineligible chief executive - Precedent cited in appeal (certifigate)

WND ^ | 2/1/10 | Bob Unruh

[pissant]

In the United States, courts can, in fact, remove a chief executive officer of a government if that officer is found to be ineligible, according to a court precedent cited in an appeal of a California lawsuit that challenges Barack Obama's legitimacy in the White House.

A multitude of cases have been brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility. Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, and others are from those who question whether the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the presidency.

The disputes revolve around the Constitution's demand that the president be a "natural born citizen."

Now in an appeal of a state court case in California that named as a defendant California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation is arguing that there already are two precedents that should be applied: one in a court case in which state officials removed from the ballot a nominee for president simply because he did not meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

"In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president," the brief, being filed this week, argues.

[Red Steel]

Glad to hear it was taught as common knowledge at one time.

[STE=Q]

Reply to your post NUMBER 558:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2442381/posts?page=558#558

I wrote:

"However, your argument is that -- as Lawyers -- the Framers were copying their former sovereign's common law, such as: Natural(born)subject is commensurate with Natural (born) citizen.

You wrote:

"Of course it was not incumbent on them to do anything. It was their conscious choice."

"Had they, on the other hand, decided to attach a new and previously unknown definition to what was otherwise a well unknown and commonly used term of art, it would have been incumbent on them to announce that they were doing so and explicitly provide this innovative definition. They pointedly did not bother."

So your answer is YES!

The Framers were copying their former sovereign's common law such as: Natural(born)subject is commensurate with Natural (born) citizen... "It was their conscious choice" as you said.

Thank you!

I wrote:

"Would it not be far MORE reasonable to infer that the Framers were looking for guidance that would supersede -- legally and philosophically -- the confines of their former British masters?"

You wrote:

"Certainly not. Perhaps you should go back and read the earlier Declaration of Independence. In particular, pay attention to the enumerated grievances. They are on the whole a series of objections to the Crown’s violations of English common law. The Colonies did not rebel against English common law, they rebelled against King George’s violation of that law. The revolution was as much about restoring the primacy of the law over arbitrary tyranny as it was about any desire to form an independent nation."

So your answer is it would "Certainly not"(your words)be reasonable to infer that the Framers were looking for guidance that would supersede -- legally and philosophically -- the confines of their former British masters.

Thank you!

I wrote:

"Why do you insist it is unreasonable for us to conclude that one such guide was Vattel's LAW of Nations?"

You Wrote:

"It is not merely unreasonable… it is impossible. De Vattel cannot be given credit for defining something he never even mentioned, referred to or wrote about."

So "it is impossible" (your words) to conclude that one such guide was Vattel's LAW of Nations.

Thank you!

As for defining "something he {De Vattel} never even mentioned, referred to or wrote about" (your words) I had submitted the following to you in an former post:

"I say,that in order be be of the country, it is NECESSARY that a person be born of a FATHER who is a CITIZEN, for if he is born there of a STRANGER, it will be ONLY the PLACE of his birth, and NOT HIS COUNTRY"{Vattel}

(Emphases mine)

NOT HIS COUNTRY!

No it doesn't "contain the phrase natural born citizens."

It just gives the very DEFINITION for Natural Born Citizen.

"In order be be of the country, it is NECESSARY that a person be born of a FATHER who is a CITIZEN"

... "for if he is born there of a STRANGER, it will be ONLY the PLACE of his birth, and NOT HIS COUNTRY."

The DEFINITION you say doesn't exist or couldn't be traced to Vattel!

You are either (1)pretending to be dense (2) you think WE are stupid (3) you think those that peruse Free Republic are!

A child born of a foreign national Father IS NOT A Natural Born Citizen... period!

Vattel knew it.

The framers knew it.

Most Americans know it!

Hell... even Obama knows it!

"The natives, or indigenes,{in-the-genes!}are those born (1) in the country {of the soil}of (2) parentS who are citizenS"{of the blood}

A "Natural Born Citizen" is one born in country to citizen parentS

Foreign Nationals need not apply!

Let's review whether it is reasonable to think Vattel influenced the framers.

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of VATTEL. It came to us **in good season** when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary FREQUENTLY to CONSULT the LAW OF NATIONS. Accordingly, that copy which I KEPT, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been CONTINUALLY in the HAND of the MEMBERS of our CONGRESS, now sitting, who are much PLEASED with your notes and preface, and have ENTERTAINED a HIGH and JUST ESTEEM for their author" {Vattel}...

(Emphases mine)

We the underwritten, appointed by the American congress a committee of foreign correspondence having perused the above Letter, Written at our Request, do approve and confirm the same.

(Signed) John Dickinson

John Jay

STE=Q

IT WOULD SEEM WE HAVE GONE FULL CIRCLE, MR WIGGINS.

IT WOULD ALSO SEEM THAT WE HAVE POLITICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES THAT CANNOT BE EASILY -- IF AT ALL -- BRIDGED.

AT THE BASE -- AT THE HEART OF IT ALL -- YOU EQUATE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN WITH A NATURAL BORN SUBJECT.

WE CAN NEVER AGREE TO SUCH A SUPPOSITION -- NEVER!

THOSE WITH EVEN A MODICUM OF GOD GIVEN INTELLIGENCE WILL SEE THE IMPLICATIONS IMPLICIT IN SUCH A SUPPOSITION.

THEY WILL REJECT IT!

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOU AS A WEST POINT GRADUATE...

GOOD LUCK!

STE=Q

[Red Steel]

From post # 526,

an excerpt from the The American Law Review article dated Sept/Oct 1884 make a salient point:

"The phrase in the above section "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not mean territorial jurisdiction ; that is the jurisdiction which a nation possesses over those who are its citizens or subjects as such. The phrase used in the constitution was intended to have a negative operation; that this is true, and that territorial jurisdiction was not meant, is evident from section 1992, which is a part of section 1, of what is known as the "Civil Rights Bill," and which was enacted by the same Congress which framed and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution; that section is as follows: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States." "

So are we to conclude Wig that in the 14th Amendment has a different meaning where it states "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when this same 39th Congress passed the "Civil Rights Bill" that states what is underlined above?

[Red Steel]

DaveTesla "So you arguing that the Constitution calls for making natural born citizens from the anchor babies of illegal immigrants?"

Wig That is the law. Yes.

The Supreme Court of the United States has not come to that conclusion. The 14th Amendment does not modify the natural born citizen clause. And I have recently pointed that out to you in Kawakita v. United States.

[Mears]

bfl

[Red Steel]

I suppose it's time for the Slaughtering of a Wigg... Since you like semantic games. Here's the proof what DaveTelsa says is true and one with no wiggle-room for you...or is that squirming:

- - - - - - - -

"MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

83 U.S. 36

Slaughterhouse Cases [*]

-Snip-

To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

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 first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. [p74] Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Slaughterhouse%20Cases&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

-end snip-

How do you like them apples... I've got more! And we wonder how people can still argue that Obama is an NBC.

[STE=Q]

Just In Case anyone missed it...

4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

... “the Supreme Court of the United States has NEVER applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parentS who are citizenS thereof”.

STE=Q

[mad_as_he$$]

CA Supreme. Federal District, Federal Appellate, SCOTUS.

[EnderWiggins]

”Let’s say Hugo Chavez came here for a UN conference, and while here, engaged in a tryst with a young American woman and impregnated her. She gave birth here and truthfully named Chavez as the father on the documentation. Is it your opinion that, when that child grew up, he or she would be Constitutionally eligible to run for and become POTUS ?:

Ignoring that there is this little thing called running a campaign against competition and actually being elected by the people of the United States that stands in the way, yes. Such a child would absolutely be Constitutionally eligible to run for and become president of the United States.

”And the Founding Fathers specified natural born citizen status ONLY for POTUS, not senator, not representative.. and for a solid reason: primary national allegiance only to the USA for the highest, most powerful office in the land and Commander in Chief of our military.”

Yes, that is your contention. However, the only definition that existed for “natural born citizen” in the English language at the time the Constitution was written is clear that the requirement is met by being born on American soil. Had the Framers wished to place additional requirements, they certainly could have done so. But they did not.

”If you, as a former military officer, educated at West Point, disagree with that premise, I feel sorry for the lack of depth, cognizance and knowledge of American history you obviously gained from your prestigious education.”

That’s okay. We do not need your approbation. We will do our duty and defend you anyway.

”Again, I laugh at your Tea Party ridicule. Ask former Gov. Corzine, former Gov. Creigh Deeds, and Martha Coakley about that .. just for starters. You need to bone up on your research.”

You keep saying that. Are you sure you don’t have me confused with somebody else?

[EnderWiggins]

"To repeat, de Vattel is used to uphold the 2nd Amendment not against it."

Almost, but not quite. De Vattel is referenced in the decision as part of the historical review contained in their dicta. It is not used to uphold the 2nd Amendment, because de Vattel explicitly did not believe that the people had any right to bear arms. He was explicit that the right was reserved for the military and the nobility. It says so right there in the footnote.

Again, we are confronted with an example of where the Framers disagreed with de Vattel and wrote the Constitution in spite of his position rather than because of his position. As such it proves that regardless of the esteem in which they held him, they did not always agree with him.

"However, de Vattel does use the "Les naturels" which is "naturals" in French."

Yes he does. and as I have demonstrated previously by posting scanned images of almost every English language edition published in the 40 years after he wrote the book, professional translators have always translated "Les naturels" as "The natives," and never once as "natural born citizens." This is also true in every English language edition of Law of Nations to this very day.

"You seem to miss the point to why the graphic was posted in the first place, to show you that 1797 publishing of de Vattel was not the copy on-hand for SCOTUS and the government, but a 1792 de Vattel published issue, making your 10 year "natural born citizen" cite nonsense and suspect at best."

And that is a pointless demonstration. It does not matter what edition the Supreme Court used for any particular discussion or decision. The 1792 edition of de Vattel simply does not include the phrase "natural born citizen." The first edition to ever include that phrase is the 1797 edition... ten years too late to have had any influence on the Framing of the US Constitution.

"A state case in Indiana that doesn't resolve anything and that it avoids Stare decisis handed down by the Supreme Court. A state case that punted the issue rather than hear the case on it's merits."

Of course you must do everything you can to ignore the decision. And yet it remains as the one Birther case where an actual judge or panel of judges have actually ruled on the issue of the wrongly labeled "de Vattel definition." There is no genuine likelihood of any other court, including SCOTUS, ever reaching a contrary conclusion.

This case is an example of how real judges understand both the Constitution and the decision of Wong Kim Ark. As such, to reasonable people it should at least serve as a cautionary tale on the results of Birther efforts in the courts.

"the Supreme Court does not confer natural born citizenship status on Kawakita because he is not. The Supreme Court has been consistent when using the phrases 'native born' vs 'natural born' in all their cases. That a 'native born' is born to the soil, and that a 'natural born citizen', is born to the soil and has citizens as parents."

If your conclusion there was true, then why did you not present a case that showed it to be true? Instead, you presented a case in which the definition of "natural born citizen" was never even considered. You magnify your error by asserting that "native born" has a specific meaning different from "natural born" and yet the case you presented makes no effort to distinguish between them and defines neither in the manner you suggest.

If such a case existed... you should present it. Other random cases such as this that do not even pretend to address the issue are of no help to you.

[EnderWiggins]

"I have shown you that the Founding Fathers read and praised de Vattel before 1787, and also signed the US Constitution."

Yes they did. And yet they still rejected his opinion on the right to bear arms. Since they rather clearly had no problem rejecting the opinion of a man they praised when he actually had an opinion, it would be doubtful that accepted from him an opinion he never even actually held.

"You state that because de Vattel was not debated or mentioned in the Madison's Notes, therefore, his definition of citizen is not the meaning and intent behind the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. That is just a leap in conclusion that does not hold up to scrutiny."

So prove me wrong. If you are correct it should be absolutely trivial to show us all (as I have now asked probably a half dozen times) a single instance where a single framer even mentioned De Vattel and citizenship in the same breath.

[EnderWiggins]

"So your answer is YES!"

No. My answer was no. It was not incumbent on them to copy English common law. I will be happy to write that answer a third time if that's what it takes for you to actually read it. Or perhaps you don't know what "incumbent" means.

"So "it is impossible" (your words) to conclude that one such guide was Vattel's LAW of Nations."

Yes... in regards to the definition of "natural born citizen."

"No it doesn't "contain the phrase natural born citizens." It just gives the very DEFINITION for Natural Born Citizen."

Uuuuhhh... no. It doesn't. It gives a definition for something... certainly. But not for natural born citizen.

"You are either (1)pretending to be dense (2) you think WE are stupid (3) you think those that peruse Free Republic are!"

Those are certainly not the only options.

"A child born of a foreign national Father IS NOT A Natural Born Citizen... period!

Vattel knew it.

The framers knew it.

Most Americans know it!

Hell... even Obama knows it!"

Then why can you not show it? If all these people knew it, why can you not provide a single example of a single Framer who ever said so?

[EnderWiggins]

"So are we to conclude Wig that in the 14th Amendment has a different meaning where it states "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when this same 39th Congress passed the "Civil Rights Bill" that states what is underlined above?"

Not at all.

We are to conclude that the author of the article you excerpted did not know what he was talking about. And that's not just an assumption. That same author made that same argument in front of the US Supreme Court. They told him he was wrong in a 6 to 2 decision.

[EnderWiggins]

"The Supreme Court of the United States has not come to that conclusion. The 14th Amendment does not modify the natural born citizen clause. And I have recently pointed that out to you in Kawakita v. United States."

And that makes it not the law... how exactly?

[EnderWiggins]

I do not need to "wiggle" at all regarding the Slaughterhouse dicta. The United States Supreme Court has already done that for me. The comment you highlighted from the Slaughterhouse decision was tackled head on by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark. He wrote immediately after quoting the comment you cited:

---------

This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.

In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:

"It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench.

-----------------

[Red Steel]

So prove me wrong. If you are correct it should be absolutely trivial to show us all (as I have now asked probably a half dozen times) a single instance where a single framer even mentioned De Vattel and citizenship in the same breath.

I am correct and you're obviously wrong.

You don't need a single instance of them debating when they universally accepted de Vattel's citizenship definition as the intent behind the natural born citizen clause.

We do know however that the first chief justice of the United States John Jay stating to George Washington expressing that the Commander-In-Chief be none other than a 'natural born'. As we all should know, the president wears the hat as the Commander-In-Chief of these United States. George Washington signed the US Constitution representing the state of Virginia and he presided over the 1787 Convention. The John Jay letter to Washington is dated July 25th, 1787, which falls within the time period of the Convention that went from May 25 to September 17, 1787.

Moreover, John Jay was a member and president of the Continental Congress. The same Congress that de Vattel's Law of Nations that was "continually in their hands" that Benjamin Franklin stated in his Memoirs.

John Jay was a US diplomat who lived in France as well as spoke French who was keenly aware of de Vattel's Law of Nations as to where he undoubtedly found the term 'natural born' and understood its meaning before he wrote to George Washington.

Here's more proof that you are so wrong.

- - - - - - - - -

U.S. Supreme Court

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The Venus

12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Syllabus

"If a citizen of the United States establishes his domicile in a foreign country between which and the United States hostilities afterwards break out, any property shipped by such citizen before knowledge of the war and captured by an American cruiser after the declaration of war must be condemned as lawful prize."

-snip-

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.

-snip-

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants

Page 12 U. S. 290

them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

-end snip-

http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

---------

The Supreme Court of the United States in their majority opinion of 1814 quoting the de Vattel's citizenship definition verbatim...what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen.

You have no real evidence and certainly no proof that de Vattel was not the meaning and intent behind the natural born citizen clause, while I have continuously shown you what you content to be is convincingly not true to any impartial reader.

[EnderWiggins]

"I am correct and you're obviously wrong."

And yet you still are completely unable to come up with a single example of a single Framer who ever mentioned de Vattel and citizenship in the same breath. Go figure.

"You don't need a single instance of them debating when they universally accepted de Vattel's citizenship definition as the intent behind the natural born citizen clause."

Well, I guess not. When you go from claiming that it was an influence at all to claiming it was "universally accepted," then you need far more than just a single instance. You would need 55. And yet, you cannot come up with a single one. Astounding how clever they were to have so carefully hidden their dependence on de Vattel. It cannot have been an accident. The Obama conspiracy must go even higher than we thought!!!

"We do know however that the first chief justice of the United States John Jay stating to George Washington expressing that the Commander-In-Chief be none other than a 'natural born'. As we all should know, the president wears the hat as the Commander-In-Chief of these United States. George Washington signed the US Constitution representing the state of Virginia and he presided over the 1787 Convention. The John Jay letter to Washington is dated July 25th, 1787, which falls within the time period of the Convention that went from May 25 to September 17, 1787."

Know the letter well. Love the letter. Too bad John Jay (not a Framer) never mentioned de Vattel in the letter. So... still not a single example? I guess not.

"Moreover, John Jay was a member and president of the Continental Congress. The same Congress that de Vattel's Law of Nations that was "continually in their hands" that Benjamin Franklin stated in his Memoirs."

Blackstone was in their hands too. And unlike de Vattel, he actually mentions "natural born" citizens.

"John Jay was a US diplomat who lived in France as well as spoke French who was keenly aware of de Vattel's Law of Nations as to where he undoubtedly found the term 'natural born' and understood its meaning before he wrote to George Washington."

Ooops. Just like Brittany Spears you did it again. You forgot that the term "natural born" could not be found at all in de Vattel until 1797. Your' "undoubtedly" is not merely "doubtful." It is impossible.

"The Supreme Court of the United States in their majority opinion of 1814 quoting the de Vattel's citizenship definition verbatim...what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen."

Oh? Really?

Could you please go back to your excerpt from the Venus case and point out to us all the words "Natural Born Citizen?" Maybe you could highlight them? Color them red perhaps or make them really really big? Because I gotta tell you... They do not appear to be there. Anywhere. Not once.

I guess we remain exactly where we have always been. You cannot provide a single example of a single Framer who even hinted that de Vattel had anything to do with Articel II of the US Constitution.

[Red Steel]

And yet you still are completely unable to come up with a single example of a single Framer who ever mentioned de Vattel and citizenship in the same breath. Go figure.

I've come up with plenty and that the Supreme Court has believed what the meaning is behind the natural born citizen clause, but you cannot come up with a single instance that's worth a dang that the Founder did not believe the same I have shown you.

[Lower55]

It’s telling that the whole defense of Obama has come down to the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

That’s a shame and a disgrace.

Noone can define it, but noone can make Obama one either.
And never will. He is not a Natural Born Citizen if his father was not an American citizen. He knows it himself.

[EnderWiggins]

I've come up with plenty and that the Supreme Court has believed what the meaning is behind the natural born citizen clause, but you cannot come up with a single instance that's worth a dang that the Founder did not believe the same I have shown you.

LOL.... oh Red. You're a funny guy. You mean like the Venus case that never even mentions "natural born citizenship" at all? You have a weird way of showing me something, by keeping it secret and all.

So I guess that you need me to post the James Madison quotation again? Okay:

"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."

That's jus soli in case you did not notice.

James Pinckney was more than merely a Framer. He was responsible for 29 out of the 60 provisions of the original Constitution. So he'd be a pretty good source for original intent, don't ya think? He said:

"They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . ."
(emphasis added)

Hmmmmmm. Not "to insure they had two citizen parents?" Not "to keep out dual citizens?" Not "to insure they had undivided loyalties or allegiances?" Not "to protect against foreign influence?"

"To insure experience and attachment to the country."

Go figure.