Free Republic comments don't prove anything either. We have been having this argument since 2008 with no result. Only a court can interpret the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. and they are not going to touch this one.
What has "proving" got to do with anything? It doesn't matter what you can prove, people want to believe what they want to believe.
Only a court can interpret the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. and they are not going to touch this one.
Anyone can "interpret" the Constitution. Only what the Court says is going to get enforced. This does not make the Court correct, it just means they have power.
I believe in an objective "right", and it remains correct even if people in authority don't agree. An example is this theory of legalized abortion. The Court said in Roe v Wade that the penumbra of the 14th amendment makes abortion legal.
I say the court is full of sh*t. They are wrong, but because they have power, their claim is enforced. Still wrong, but enforced none the less.
US Supreme Court, Wong Kim Ark v United States.
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.