Free Republic

jda: “What’s right is right, regardless of your political affiliation. I say SCOTUS should make a ruling and we should ALL live by it, although it’s a bit late to do anything about the current POTUS.”

Actually, they have ruled over 100 years ago and we’ve been following it ever since. Certain people want to ignore it, but the courts won’t.

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html

There’s just a few reference materials that cover it. Also, may I add

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

No parental requirement there

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

Nope, no parental requirement there either

Check out the book list I gave you, there’s plenty of other examples.

Plummz:” This is false. Hamilton proposed the Presidential qualification that he be a “born citizen,” but this was rejected by the founders in favor of John Jay’s reccommendation that the President be only a natural born citizen.

Please stop lying about our Founding Fathers. “

Sorry Plummz, but you are mistaken. You are either born a citizen and eligible, or are naturalized and are not.

Minor V Happersett
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

Clear as day, if you are born a citizen you are eligible.

Peter: “Multiculture -the disintegration of nations. The Framers of the Constitution must be turning in their graves.”

Considering that the country was already multicultural at that time, I doubt at all that the Framers would be too worried about it. Also, at that time, the country was encouraging different cultures to move here and settle so they could fill real needs in the country. For example, the country had almost NO NAVY after the Revolutionary War and needed shipbuilders, Captains, experienced naval personnel, etc. Your complaint is in your own imagination.