Have you found a court that agrees with you yet...???
We wouldn’t have the Kenyanesian Usurpation if the courts cared about the Constitution.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.With time I could provide a list of over twenty supreme court cases; state courts have no authority to interpret the meaning of terms in the Constitution. The list would obviously include Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg, but the point is made. I suspect that it would make no difference to those whose beliefs are based upon other than our founders and framers' intent. Ted Cruz, with the same constitutional law professor as Obama, clearly thinks he can depreciate the Constitution too. At least Obama never claimed to be a natural born citizen; he let John Roberts do that for him, which should, if we ever return to respect for the Constitution, cause Roberts to be impeached for directly failing to honor and defend the Constituton. Even Cruz' con. law professor, Larry Tribe, pointed out that Ted was lying about law he knows reasonably well.
Ted, often described as brilliant, is clearly not so smart as he thinks, or his supporters boast. Anyone who knows Constitutional law knows Ted is lying about the authority in the 14th Amendment to create natural born citizens. There is no such authority, not one word about natural born citizenship, and John Bingham, author of the citizenship section, was explicit on that fact in his lectures to the House in 1866.
Cruz has burned his bridges for an appointment to the Supreme Court, or should have, if we manage to move away from oligarchy to representative democracy. Ted may have to face charges for having been a Canadian citizen while a Texas senator. Our naturalization oath requires "sole Allegiance", and Ted is a naturalized citizen, still a Canadian citizen until 2014. Ted will probably still find the doors open at Heidi's Council on Foreign Relations, or even, now that Obama, not Congress as the law requires, has opened the doors to Cuba, as an executive for Heidi's Goldman Sachs' Cuban division. Our founders, framers, Montesque, Paine, Pufendorf, Bynkershoek, Vattel, Blackstone, Wilson, Marshall, Jay, Washington, Jefferson, ..., all understood that the most universal determinant of a man's allegiance is the allegiance of his parents. Ted's father fought with Fidel; Obama's father's allegiances were to Marx and Allah, passing his son to Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Khalid al-Mansour and Obama's patron, Alwaleed bin-Talal.
You cannot be a natural born citizen if you need a statute to do so.
SUPREME COURT Ruling on Naturalized Citizenship status of ‘Children Born Abroad” – In Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), a case where the birth circumstances (child was born to American mother and Foreign Father in Italy) were nearly identical to those of Cruz, their ruling was as follows:
“…Afroyim’s broad interpretation of the scope of the Citizenship Clause finds ample support in the language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bellei was not “born . . . in the United States,” but he was, constitutionally speaking, “naturalized in the United States.” Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history.
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. ANYONE ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP SOLELY UNDER THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.”
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens....”
Furthermore from the State Department:
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-538; 10-24-2014)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a persons birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a persons citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called citizenship by descent or derivative citizenship, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed. https://fam.state.gov/searchapps/viewer?format=html&query=7%20fam&links=7,FAM&url=/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1110.html#M1111
Does derivative citizenship sound like NBC?
That answer YOU probably can find when SCOTUS on January 14th, 2009 got a Chicago-Godfather-Thug’s like visit with John Roberts and Co. Everything in the court systems were “castrated” on the NBC issues. And the whole nation was intimidated into “silence” at the same date !!!