That's because you can't cross an apple with a non-apple. It won't bear fruit. That rule doesn't apply with citizenship though. When you try it, you end up with something like this.
The Zonkey; American Citizenship as defined by idiots.
Posted on 07/28/2013 6:13:04 PM PDT by drewh
Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t said whether he has presidential ambitions, but Sunday he won one of the first straw polls for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
The Texas Republican captured 45 percent of the 504 votes cast by attendees at the Western Conservative Summit, a day after drawing several standing ovations during his luncheon speech at the fourth annual conference.
“We shall see what sort of crystal ball summiteers have in awarding that decisive nod to Sen. Ted Cruz, who was so magnificent from this platform,” said John Andrews, founder of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, which hosted the event.
Placing second was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who delivered the keynote address Friday at the three-day summit, with 13 percent of the vote.
Tied for third were Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, and former Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, with 9 percent each. Mr. West was the conference’s featured speaker Sunday, while Mr. Paul received the most votes among those on the ballot who didn’t attend the conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I think I now see where we differ in one respect as to ‘natural born citizen’. You note, if I understand correctly, that one possibility is that being born anywhere on earth with ‘ONE’ parent being a citizen of the USA makes that person eligible for POTUSA. I respectfully disagree. I see the Constitution as requiring ‘Both’ parents to be USA citizens. With me the place of birth presents a further question. I believe ‘natural born’ was intended by the Founders to include place of birth though some might think more in terms of type of birth. I also believe the Founders left leeway for place of birth to include USA soil anywhere on earth. USA soil includes territories, embassies, and like earth under USA control. This brings up the matter of McCain’s eligibility for POTUSA. In the strictest view McCain was not eligible because he was born in a hospital outside the USA controlled Canal Zone. I believe the Democrats knew this when the Senate passed It’s worthless resolution but believed they had a challenge in the case that McCain won the election. They won and so the only remaining problem was to protect Obama’s hidden past.
If she's 14 years old, she's still 100% American, but the Baby becomes 100% Mexican. How does that work for ya?
Youse guys have a real funny way of deciding "natural" citizenship.
It must be nice having the "truth" poured into you by your "Authority" superiors. Thinking for yourself is such a drag.
Mindless twit.
Again, Congress is the final authority on eligibility matters, and Congress is on my side in this argument.
The CRS memo was nothing but disinformation propaganda by Jack Maskell to cover for Obama. It gave congressmen their talking points in case the people that they represented questioned Obama’s eligibility. Author Jack Maskell came up with a convoluted series of mendacious arguments that ignored 135 years of settled law and the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 on eligibility requirements. This happened right after “JustiaGate,” when Justia, a major legal research database vendor, was caught red-handed altering its records to delete references to the SCOTUS ruling on Minor V Happersett, the 1875 precedent on NBC.
And the thought never occurred to you that "natural" citizens don't have age and residency requirements? How can the two things be equal when one has conditions and the other does not?
The Dumbness is astonishing.
Congress IS given the power, under the law, to determine eligibility. YES, authority does matter.
Especially because you birthers have NO authhority at all, do you?
You are not specifically answering my question I proposed to you. Here it is again:
Do you agree that natural born Citizens are born from parents who do not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty?
That's because you can't cross an apple with a non-apple. It won't bear fruit. That rule doesn't apply with citizenship though. When you try it, you end up with something like this.
The Zonkey; American Citizenship as defined by idiots.
I refuse to be boxed in by language that you, yourself, obviously do not understand.
The phrase about “allegiance” is SPECIFICALLY placed in the Amendment to take care of the children of DIPLOMATS and other similar circumstances.
I refuse to answer yes or no to stupid questions.
I define a stupid question as a question that is not understood by the person asking the question.
Reason is wasted on that one.
You live in a strange frightening little world. You don't know what something means until an "Authority" tells you what it means, AND you think they can change the meaning as it suits them?
George Orwell predicted this world. You want to live in it.
The clown show is back in town. See 246.
Hahahahahhahahahahaha! A snake eating its tail. Good luck with that.
He really doesn't see how illogical that is. Simply amazing.
So are you stating that these two quotes below by the 14th Amendment author regarding U.S. citizen parents of natural born citizens owing allegiance to NO foreign sovereignties is stupid?
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Samba everybody! One Note only! 
No, I accept it.
I accept that John Marshall quoted Vattel.
I accept that Marshall quoted Vattel quite a bit.
I accept that he quoted the passage you like - but it wasn't in a case on citizenship, it was a case on international law. Specifically: How do we treat a US citizen who's living in a country we are currently at war with? Do we respect his property on the high seas? Or do we treat it AS IF it is the property of an enemy?
In the case you name, Marshall doesn't use the term "natural born citizen" even one time. Anyone can read the case - The Venus - and see for himself this is true.
Therefore, his quote in that case has no bearing on the meaning of
Now, if anything I've said above is incorrect, feel free to identify it, point it out, and document the proof it's incorrect. Otherwise, feel free to STFU, since if everything I've said is correct, you are clearly an idiot.
“The phrase about “allegiance” is SPECIFICALLY placed in the Amendment to take care of the children of DIPLOMATS and other similar circumstances.”
The father of the 14th Amendment was not talking about children of diplomats and other similar circumstances. Learn to read. He states specifically:
“EVERY HUMAN BEING born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
You understand what ‘Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States’ means right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.