ROFL, that lame argument again where you parse & edit only the part of Madison’s words to hide the part wherein he tells why Smith was a citizen by birth on the soil.
What you leave out is that part of the discussion that pertained to citizen, not NBC & Madison also further went on to say that “
Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”
Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of jus soli birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim. Madison further explains farther into his speech on the floor that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence; Smith’s citizenship came through his father(ties of nature). The act of Smith’s father taking an oath to become a citizen of the new society automatically gave consent for his children by becoming himself a member of the new society.
IOW, according to Madison, birth on soil did NOT automatically make one a citizen, the parents must have been citizens for the child to become one. BWHAHAHAHA....
Readers can then make up their own minds about its proper context.
The judges or justices that have stated an opinion on Barack Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen or not have referenced either the 14th Amendment or the Supreme Court decisions deriving from the 14th Amendment such as US v Wong Kim Ark from 1898.
There’s just no way around those opening 14th Amendment words:
“ALL PERSONS BORN...”
As far as you linking to the Madison speech, parse & edit, why not give ALL of it, especially the reason Madison came to his conclusion? I know, because it contradicts you interpretation of Madison's words and shows your desperation to change the actual intent of the term ‘natural born’ as Congress has been trying to do for nearly 50 years now.
“The judges or justices that have stated an opinion on Barack Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen or not have referenced either the 14th Amendment or the Supreme Court decisions deriving from the 14th Amendment such as US v Wong Kim Ark from 1898.
There’s just no way around those opening 14th Amendment words:
‘ALL PERSONS BORN...’”
Two problems with your statement:
1) You are absolutely right, these are the judges OPINIONS; however, it is NOT the reason the decision was handed down. For example, if I am a judge and I sentence a man to death because we have clear video and DNA evidence of his actions and then I say this man is a good Christian - does not make it so - it is my opinion and has NOTHING to do with the fact that the man committed murder and THAT is why the decision was handed down! IOW, it had nothing to do with the case since every single one of these cases have been thrown out for not having standing - not because he is a NBC!
2) You say there is no way around those opening words “All persons born..” and I say there is - “...under the jurisdiction thereof...”! This was not a “loophole” which some people argue and this is not a mistake, it was meant to clarify that the people had a sole interest and allegiance to the United States! This has been shown to be the case over and over and over again.
A few judges decided that TODAY the words, “under the jurisdiction thereof” only means must abide by the laws, therefore everyone else is wrong does not make everyone else wrong! It makes the judges activists who want to make the laws be what they want them to be.
Here is a good example. Congress argued that Obamacare was NOT a tax and therefore did not violate the promises of The Won. However, in court documents, they are now arguing that it is a tax and therefore the states cannot say anything because the Constitution says that only Congress can regulate taxes. However, Obamacare was started in the Senate and then passed by the House - which is clearly against the law if it is indeed a tax. So, a judge says, yep it’s a tax and states cannot interfere, then they also make this UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it did not start in the House. So, they say that well, the House did vote on A health care bill, so that is fine. It does not make it so - it only exacerbates the continuing slide away from our freedom!
You are arguing that just because we are loosing sight of the founding fathers and the original authors, we shouldn’t worry because a few judges said it was ok. You sir are rooting for the demise of our country! Do you not see this, or do you simply not care?