Utter nonsense that reflects a total lack of understanding of the law.
1. The Venus did not address the issue of NBC for Article 2, so it can’t be used for precedent. What’s more, Marshall’s comments are in a CONCURRING OPINION. That means that all they reflect is that justice’s opionion. He his not speaking for the court.
2. Article 2, does not define an NBC, but Article 1 does give Congress the power to determine the law for establishing citizenship. Congress is presumed to have known the Const. when it enacted 8 USC sec. 1401 which provides that person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. There is no requirement that either of the parents be citizens, or even be here legally.
3. The latter amendments of the Const. control the former Articles. The 14th Amendment provides that 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 plain text of the law states that anyone born here who is subject to jurisdiction is a citizen. Even illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of US and state laws. Otherwise they would have diplomatic immunity.
4. The decision in Wong Kim Ark, a citizenship case, recognized the principle of birth citizenship. Even the dissent correctly noted that the effect of the majority opinion was that “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not”.
Case closed. There’s a reason why these birther suits get tossed and it’s not because of a conspiracy. It’s because anyone with sufficient training in the law realizes they are the equivalent of a toddler giving an opinion about brain surgery.
1. You miss the point. Marshall cited Vattel’s definition of natural citizenship. It’s the same one used in Minor v. Happersett (which was offered to define what the term NBC means in Art II Sec I). That same definition was cited and AFFIRMED in Wong Kim Ark.
2. Article I gives congress the power to naturalize. The natural citizens upon the adoption of the Constitution were defined in the preamble ... We the people of the United States ... who established this Constitution for “ourselves and our posterity.” IOW, for citizens and for the children of citizens.
3. Justice Waite rejected the 14th amendment as defining the citizenship of a natural born citizen. Justice Gray affirmed this. The definition was as they explained it, outside of the Constitution, relying on Vattel’s definition: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.
4. Wong Kim Ark did not meet the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC. Justice Gray relied on English common law and what he called “citizenship by birth” (not NBC) and permanent domicil to judge that Ark fit the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Obama fails on both NBC and the permanent domicil requirement. At best he is a statutory, naturalized citizen, but only if he has LEGAL proof he was born in the United States or unless his mother was not legally married to his father. He is NOT an NBC. Case closed.
The usual first indication of a troll at work is the ad-homonym insult. But, troll or not, let's look at troll technique:
“1. The Venus did not address the issue of NBC for Article 2 so it can't be used for precedent.” There was no need to address natural born citizenship, the definition of a natural born Citizen has never been challenged in court (though some lower courts have misstated the definition). The Venus was about citizenship, and provided an opportunity for our greatest Chief Justice to clarify the common-law definition, subsequently used in a dozen or more cases. Most Constitutional definitions come from our common law. “He is not speaking for the court.” No one claimed Marshall was speaking "for the court," but for whom to chief justices speak? Marshall, incidentally, introduced the practice of a decision of the court to give more weight to supreme court decisions.
“2. Article 2 does not define and NBC...” Like most terms used in the Constitution, natural born Citizen was well understood by our framers, and its source, Vattel, is by far the most cited legal doctrine in American jurisprudence for the first three decades of our republic (Grotian Society Papers 1972, Ruddy) Also, a typical troll technique, referring to Article 1 Section 8, Congress’ power to establish a uniform naturalization code, the operative term is, “naturalization.” A president must be a “natural” citizen, not a naturalized citizen. Otherwise “Anchor Babies” are eligible to the presidency, or the American-born child of stalwart royalists, certainly not the intent of our founders and framers who had just given lots of blood and lives to remove the influence of the Crown from the new republic.
Lou Budvis continues with a discussion of the 14th Amendment which nowhere mentions natural born Citizenship. In fact its author, John Bingham, tells us that a natural born citizen must be born “of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”
Finally, the usual ploy is to refer to the remarkably obtuse decision in Wong Kim Ark, knowing that few can penetrate its mistakes and excursion into English Common Law. The first citation in Wong Kim Ark is to Justice Waite's definition in Minor v. Happersett, “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” Also, Wong Kim Ark was deemed not a natural born Citizen, but a citizen, or a “native-born citizen”, just like Barack Obama. Some wonder if Horace Gray, the justice who wrote the Wong Kim decision, and who was appointed by the only other ineligible president Chester Arthur, might have written a confusing and misleading opinion intentionally. Confusing and misleading it is, but Gray cites Minor v. Happersett, and does not make Wong Kim a natural born Citizen. Neither is Barack Obama.
As Lou Budvis said, “Case closed.” This is not one of the more clever efforts by a troll. Some have found really obscure cases which require reading to debunk. It is easy to spot the truth. Citizens are either natural born, or naturalized. The only definitions repeated and cited for a natural born citizen conform with Justice Marshall's “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Nowhere does congress define natural born Citizenship. Congress makes laws. Only one class of citizen is made by nature, by natural law, and that is a born citizen, born to parents who are citizens, natural or naturalized, and born on our sovereign soil. Other citizens are defined by law, and thus naturalized, like Bobby Jindal, Barack Obama, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madeline Albright, Zbignew Brezinski. Naturalized citizens cannot be president. The 14th Amendment naturalized non-citizen slaves. Title 8 used the 14th Amendment to create all sorts citizens, some native-born and some not. Anchor babies are native-born citizens. Our Constitution did not accidentally enable anchor babies to be president, while denying Kissinger, Albright, Schwarzenegger, Mark Steyn, or Cary Grant from becoming president. It is about inherited allegiance, no guarantee, but a sensible requirement, as shown by Barack Jr's inherited dreams from his father, the British/Kenyan/Marxist-anti-capitalist.