The Romney clan's move to Mexico and what effect it may have had on George Romney's citizenship still concerns me somewhat. Based on what I've read on the subject (which is little compared to that done by others, since I didn't even take an interest until less than a year ago, a la The Donald's brief conniptions), I believe that George Romney's parents did not renounce their US citizenship when they moved to Mexico. I also believe that George Romney, having been born in Mexico to (presumed, for argument's sake) US citizens was nevertheless born as a citizen of other than Natural Born type and was therefore ineligible to actually hold the office of the presidency, though there's nothing stopping him from throwing money away running for said office. The best term I've seen used to describe this class of citizen would be "naturalized at birth" by virtue of having at least one US citizen parent when born at any location outside of the US or its territories. If George was even this type of citizen, it would still then make Mitt eligible. If anyone on FR has information that can incontrovertibly establish George Romney's citizenship bona fides, I'd be very grateful if they could post such.
"The Minor decision references Mrs. Minor's Virginia birth and her parents' citizenship. Would anyone dispute that those three qualifications certainly qualified her as a citizen?"
Again, I'll extend the invitation to any FReepers reading this who are (likely) more knowledgeable than I am to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Ms. Happersett was attempting to litigate based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They denied her that tactic by pointing up her Natural Born citizenship status as a reason for denying her case under the auspices of the 14th, noting that there was nothing in law guaranteeing the right of women to vote and that such had been the case prior to the 14th Amendment.
"Would one qualification or two of those three suffice to be a "natural born citizen?" is the actual question. I say yes. You and others say no."
Fare enough.
God's blessings upon you and yours also.
(I figured out that the "verbal left hook" wasn't directed to me. You have to admit that it's a pretty good line, though. . .)
Black Elk seems to follow the adage of - If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS...and BE piles it up high when necessary.
I would modify your post as to one minor particular on the facts of Minor vs. Happersett. The plaintiff/claimant was Mrs. Minor and the defendant was Happersett and was presumably a man since Missouri's law at issue prohibited the registration of a woman and would have likely prevented a woman from being a registrar. Happersett was a registrar of voters in Missouri who was the nominal defendant.
I don't really know whether GEORGE Romney's paternal grandparents had renounced their American citizenship or whether any of his grandparents were born in the US or Mexico. During one of numerous Marxist rebellions in Mexico and after GEORGE Romney's birth, his father decided to move to Utah. I have heard that George's paternal grandfather had as few as four wives or as many as twelve, but have no solid proof. In the 1870s, the renowned Brigham Young, then the Mormon Prophet, determined that the Mormons should establish colonies in or near Chihuahua. If that was the reason for this branch of clan Romney to move to Mexico rather than outrage later over the USA imposing a requirement that Utah outlaw polygamy as a condition of admission to the Union is a question worth pondering in relation to whether there was intent to renounce citizenship. As to those 4-12 wives of GEORGE's grandfather, IF they were generally (whether 4 or 12) happy wives, I do admire his stamina and his social skills in serving as patriarch and a necessarily awesome referee. I find that being married to one wife is and has been enough of a challenge to suit me. God bless her.
The Founders really should have resolved the meaning of "natural born citizen" for the guidance of future generations. Since they did not, it is probably a good idea for SCOTUS to resolve it. Genuine ambiguity in the wording of an enactment is one of the most common grounds for SCOTUS to assert jurisdiction. The SCOTUS does not get to rule unless one or more cases are brought to trigger judicial jurisdiction.
I DO have to admit that "verbal left hook" is a pretty good line.