Arizona Representative Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley) has introduced a bill in the Arizona legislature to keep presidential candidates off the ballot unless they prove that they meet the U.S. Constitutional qualifications. See this story. The bill is not yet on-line and doesn’t have a bill number. At this point it is not apparent if the bill relates to the Arizona presidential primary ballot, or to the general election ballot, or both.
Two apparently similar bills were introduced in the Arizona Senate in 2009, but they made no headway. They were SB 1053 and SB 1158.
In other Arizona-related news, I heard they might rename Judy Burges’s rural hometown “Thick Skull Valley.”
Hear, hear, Darcy. Nobody could have said it better.
It really is time to say, as Archie Bunker said to Edith, “stifle yourself,” Judy (the same to the Birthers in general).
And by the way, since the duopoly so stacks the cards against third-party and independent candidates that their election is absolutely unthinkable, what reasonable interest does the state have in assuring that they are constitutionally-eligible to serve??
well obama will not be on the ballot
I wonder what steps the SoS must take in order to “prove” natural born status along with 14 years residency.
I don’t think anyone has ever claimed Obama has not lived in the country for 14 years, and the Hawaii birth certificate he has furnished is prima facie evidence of his natural born status.
Sorry — natural born = AT BIRTH allegiance to a nation-state regime — based on the allegiance status of the parents — possibly ONLY the father – see the total male dominance in 1776-1868.
There is the *natural* in naturalization — switching a nation-state allegiance — as was the case for most of the ancestors of current LEGAL American citizens — who was your grand daddy, great grand daddy, etc. ???
Sorry — the father of Obama was a citizen-subject of the United Kingdom (i.e. Kenya) the second that Obama was born in 1961 — where ever Obama was born.
Of course, many of the usual suspect legal MORONS on this list get their legal education out of a dumpster — i.e. are EVIL LAWLESS when it comes to the U.S.A. Constitution and its Anglo-American background in legal – political history.
Will Obama thus manufacture a rigged DNA test in order to have a U.S.A. citizen-father — perhaps even somebody like Martin Luther King ???
i.e. — mere facts down the old memory hole into oblivion ???
Hi,
One can only hope that the new bill will spell out
the check list that the SoS can select yes or no for
each requirement.
The list needs to spell out the exact meaning of
“natural born citizen” as it was understood back in
1776. The framers of the constitution wrote the
phrase “natural born citizen” but, did not defind the
the phrase.
Thanks and Good Luck
TO: Demo Rep,
Barack H. Obama was not a British Subject he was a British Protected Person under the terms of the British
Nationality Act 1948. He was from birth like his son
a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar, because the paternal grandfather circa 1919 was naturialized in Zanzabar under the then Zanzibar Nationality Decree.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman
American Independant Party
the US constitution defines the following words or terms:
see list
the US constitution does not define the following words or terms:
see list
John S. McCain III is not a citizen of the United States, because of the fact that John S. McCain II & Roberta McCain nee Wright never married prior to his
birth in the Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama, on August 29, 1936 at 6:35 p.m., and because at the time
of that birth, Roberta was not employed by either the
United States Government or the Panama Railroad Company.
John S. McCain III disinformation campaign claims he was born at the Coco Solo base hospital. However, the base hospital was not build until years after his birth.
When Captain McCain retired from the Navy to run for
Congress he informed the US Department of the Navy that
he was born in Colon, Panama.
John McCain II and Roberta Wright disinformation claim
getting wed at Ceasar’s Bar in TJ, Baja California, Mexico on January 21, 1933 is bogus, after 1927 only place one could get married in Baja California was at the Office of the Civil Registry. Ceasar’s Bar is not an office of the Civil Registry. Recorded at the office
of the county clerk in Lordburg, New Mexico on October
28, 2008, is a certificate of non-marriage between the
years 1927 and 2008 for John McCain and Roberta Wright,
which was issued by the Government of Baja California.
Because of that recording the document has full faith
and credit.
John McCain III did not enter the United States lawfully
in December, 1936, no entry recorded by INS for McCain.
Birth in Pamama and the Canal Zone until August 4, 1937,
from 1904, were not covered under the 1855 Act which gave citizenship to children of United States Citizen
Fathers or under the 1934 Act which extended it to United State Citizen Mother’s or both, because on August
29, 1936 all of Panama was under the jurisdiction of the
Goverment of the United States, therefore the 1934 act
did not cover the birth of John McCain III, because to
apply the birth had to take place outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. Panama and the Canal Zone on August 29, 1836 were outside the territorial limits of the United States, but were within the jurisdiction of the United States, by the
terms of treaty between Panama and United States.
Bottom line John Sidney McCain III is a citizen of the
Republic of Panama and not of the United States.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
I just notice a date error in the above posting. McCain is very old, born in 1936 and I made him losts
older with an 1836 birth year. The correct year is 1936.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independant Party
For those interest in the law governing birth of a child
born in the Republic of Panama to a United States Citizen mother out of wedlock read
“Interpretation 303.1 (b)(2)-United States Citizenship
aquired in the Republic of Panama [Persons Born Out of
Wedlock]” issued by the USCIS. It can be found at:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DovView/sibid1/1616/1623?hi/ite=
Remember John Sidney McCain II died in an airplane over
the Atlantic Ocean and there was no probate of his will
in Republic of Panama. Plus, he never visit a common law jurisdiction with Robeerta Wright prior to the date
August 29, 1936.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
I just made a one letter typing error above the site is:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/sibid1/1616/1623?hi/ite=
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Pingback: The Right Side of Life » AZ State Rep Crafting Eligibility Bill
Re: “Sorry — natural born = AT BIRTH allegiance to a nation-state regime — based on the allegiance status of the parents — possibly ONLY the father – see the total male dominance in 1776-1868.”
Andrew Jackson had TWO parents who were not citizens. Neither of them were. He was a good president.
And besides “Natural Born” was merely a synonym for “native born” at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Native born was not used frequently in those days, but Natural Born was used very frequently, and it always meant “born in the country” (except for the children of foreign diplomats).
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.†(December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.†(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
re: the US constitution and grand-father president Andrew Jackson
^ The ten U.S. presidents born before the adoption of the Constitution, and who thus could not be “natural born” U.S. citizens, include George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, and Zachary Taylor.
Childhood
Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, was born in the Waxhaws area near the border between North and South Carolina on March 15, 1767. Jackson’s parents lived in North Carolina but historians debate on which side of the state line the birth took place.
Jackson was the third child and third son of Scots-Irish parents. His father, also named Andrew, died as the result of a logging accident just a few weeks before the future president was born. Jackson’s mother, Elizabeth (“Betty”) Hutchison Jackson, was by all accounts a strong, independent woman. After her husband’s death she raised her three sons at the South Carolina home of one of her sisters.
GO to top
——————————————————————————–
The American Revolution
The Declaration of Independence was signed when young Andrew was nine years old and at thirteen he joined the Continental Army as a courier. The Revolution took a toll on the Jackson family. All three boys saw active service. One of Andrew’s older brothers, Hugh, died after the Battle of Stono Ferry, South Carolina in 1779, and two years later Andrew and his other brother Robert were taken prisoner for a few weeks in April 1781. While they were captives a British officer ordered them to clean his boots. The boys refused, the officer struck them with his sword and Andrew’s hand was cut to the bone. Because of his ill treatment Jackson harbored a bitter resentment towards the British until his death.
Both brothers contracted smallpox during their imprisonment and Robert was dead within days of their release. Later that year Betty Jackson went to Charleston to nurse American prisoners of war. Shortly after she arrived Mrs. Jackson fell ill with either ship fever or cholera and died. Andrew found himself an orphan and an only child at fourteen. Jackson spent most of the next year and a half living with relatives and for six of those months was apprenticed to a saddle maker.
Constitutional provisions
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. â€
The grandfather provision of the “natural born Citizen” clause provides an exception to the “natural born” requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of these citizens had been born as British subjects before the American Revolution (or were born after the Revolution, but before 1787). Without this exception, ten subsequent presidents would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve.[1]
Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, defines a “Citizen” of the United States, but not a “natural born Citizen.” Its Citizenship Clause provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
[edit] Possible sources
Although an archaic definition of the phrase “natural born” is “having a position by birth,”[2] there is no record of a debate on the “natural born Citizen” qualification during the Constitutional Convention. This clause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a whole. One possible source of the clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[3]
Another possible source, worded differently, comes from Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Convention. On June 18, 1787, Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton’s plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”[4]
# 7 Obama’s father took NO naturalization action to be connected with the British Empire ???
Of course in 5th world nations such stuff did NOT happen too much — with folks just trying to survive each day.
Art. III, Sec. 2 recognizes only citizens/subjects of foreign regimes for U.S.A. court jurisdiction purposes — i.e. NO dual citizenship stuff and NO *stateless* stuff. Even somewhat barbarian regimes in 1787 were deemed to be foreign nation-states.
# 14 Party hack MORONS like Graham and Hatch are fortunately NOT on the Supremes.
Sorry – NO allegiance to the U.S.A. by ANY foreign folks — diplomats, tourists, ship wrecked forks, invaders (see Japanese Empire occupation of various parts of the U.S.A. in 1941-1945), pirates, stateless terrorists, ILLEGAL immigrants, etc. — with or without their highly pregnant females having kids born within the U.S.A. area.
See Blackstone’s Commentaries — the subjects chapter — those mere lower folks under the monarch/lords [DARK AGE ANTI-Democracy feudal stuff].
See the 1866 Senate debates on the first – citizenship sentence in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — *AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof* clause. Repeat the clause about 10,000 times to learn something.
Vice versa for pregnant female U.S.A. citizens in foreign nations.
Sorry – If a U.S.A. citizen wife of a U.S.A. citizen Prez happens to have a kid born in a foreign nation area, that kid AIN’T a citizen/subject of that foreign nation — but is a natural born citizen of the U.S.A.
Even more so if the U.S.A. citizen Prez happens to be a pregnant female in one of these years on some emergency trip to a foreign nation in peacetime, fighting a war overseas, etc.
How many *he* mentions in the Constitution ???
Sorry – NOT too many female *rights* in 1776-1791.
Thus the 1787 folks did NOT want ANY person having ANY allegiance whatever to a FOREIGN nation-state to be a Prez of the U.S.A. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS — i.e. CIC of the U.S.A. military — thus the temporary language to permit ex-British Empire folks on 4 July 1776 who automatically became natural born U.S.A. citizens by the DOI to be allowed to be Prezs.
Art. II, Sec. 1, para. 5 —– No Person except a natural born Citizen [[, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,]] shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[[temporary language]]
1787-14 = 1773 Year of the Boston Tea Party.
This AIN’T high tech legal stuff — but VERY primitive stuff.
re: the US constitution and grand-father president Andrew Jackson
^ The ten U.S. presidents born before the adoption of the Constitution, and who thus could not be “natural born†U.S. citizens, include George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, and Zachary Taylor.
Okay. Andrew Jackson was grandfathered. Nevertheless, neither of his parents were citizens. Do you think that the framers of the Constitution thought that someone who was born before the Constitution was better than someone who was born after the Constitution?
However, George Washington, Jefferson, and all those that were born in the USA, including Jackson, were in fact Natural Born. They were Natural Born because the meaning of Natural Born at the time was simply “born in the country.” And they became citizens of the USA through their states at the moment that the Declaration of Independence was declared. Other former colonies of Britain followed the same format, before independence the person was a citizen of Britian, after independence she or he became automatically citizens of the new country.
The meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and from the laws in the colonies at the time of the Revolution. It does not come from Vattel, in which his term “indignes” is not translated as “Natural Born Citizen” until a decade after the Constitution.
Here is a quotation from about the time of the writing of the Constitution that shows that (1) Natural Born Citizens existed before the Constitution; and (2) Natural Born meant “born in the country’ (Not “born in the country with two citizen parents.”)
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.†(This is from St. George Tucker’s book “View of the Constitution of the United States†was the first extended, systematic commentary on the Constitution. It was written in 1803, about 13 years after the ratification of the Constitution. )
The meaning of the paragraph is that since there was no naturalization before the Constitution, there were no Naturalized citizens, and so the only other residents of the colonies and early states were either aliens or citizens at birth, which at the time were known as Natural Born Citizens.
— wishing to change history and the meaning of the US constitution is what people (like ACORN) are all about.
— current ineligible POTUS/CINC is busy appointing executive and court foreign financed agents to rig immigration enforcement rules and to encourage / allow terrorists into this country.
— the sooner this all comes to a catharsis the better
Re: “Thus the 1787 folks did NOT want ANY person having ANY allegiance whatever to a FOREIGN nation-state to be a Prez of the U.S.A. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS…”
Agreed. However, at the time the framers believed that birth in a country caused you to have allegiance to that country. Madison writes that the Europeans believed that blood (parents) were the criterion of allegiance, but that Britain and the USA consider the place of birth to the the criterion of allegiance.
Madison said: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
(A speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789).
Madison says that the criterion of allegiance that applies in the United States is place. He does not say two criteria — place and blood. Just PLACE.
And Blackstone says that you can have only one legal allegiance, not two. Thus he, and other lawyers at the time, did not believe that dual nationality could affect allegiance. The only thing that affected allegiance, Blackstone and Madison and others at the time believed, was the place of birth.
This fits with the definition of Natural Born at the time being “born in the country.” And thus we can see the framers excluded foreigners from being president, and they excluded Naturalized citizens from being president (unless they were grandfathered like Alexander Hamilton), but they did not excluded the US-born children of foreigners from being president.
The folks loyal to the U.S.A. on 4 July 1776 became Citizens of the U.S.A. by virtue of the DOI.
See the last paragraph regarding the independence of each State — with an existing loyal population.
Sorry – British royalist folks (and their children) becames instant enemies / invaders.
All sorts of test oaths were required. Fail the oath — get arrested, forced out of the States, or even be shot dead for being a Brit spy.
All sorts of State bills of attainer on top Brit persons — esp. flunkee appointees by the KG III regime of colony Guvs and various appointed Brit judges.
I.E. – one rough and tough de facto Civil WAR — as tough as any in world history.
#16 was written before seeing #15 — which confirms #16.
Gen. later Prez Jackson got some revenge on the Brits in the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans — i.e. smashing the Brit Army invasion force.
#18 is mindless.
Hitler / Mussolini [the lady’s man of the EVIL bunch] / Hirohito invade the U.S.A. with a hoard of enemy soldiers on a rape and pillage mission — and bring along a hoard of female rape victims.
The females (both American and foreign) give birth on U.S.A. soil — including some fathered even by Hitler / Mussolini / Hirohito.
Are the kids thus born magically *natural born* citizens of the U.S.A. — to be later capable of being elected as a U.S.A. Prez ???
Yeah. Sure. Only in somebody’s lunatic New Age legal nightmares.
This is all part of the obvious leftwing expedient scheme to do whatever leftwing stuff is expedient to have PERMANENT leftwing control of the U.S.A. regime — pending Dollar Judgment Day when other things will happen.
finally to close this thread, during after the civil war — to address the unjust flaw (partial) citizenship of slaves born and/or residing in the US, the constitutional amendment grandfathered the slaves. It did not (and may soon be ruled to have not) granted citizenship to say Osama Bin Laden’s off-spring conceived with some zany teenage (e.g. Stanley Ann Dunham) US citizen — let alone that the what if-example hypothetical child born in the US is not to be a natural born citizen.
A natural born citizen is a person who is bestowed citizenship at time of birth or through an act of congress. All that is required is a birth certificate from an American State or similar entity of the U.S.A.
Any requirements that mandates that both parents must be American and the child must be born on American soil isn’t written anywhere in American law.
Obama birthers are disillusioned. McCain birthers are disillusioned. They honestly believe that there arguments are original.
A bit more regarding the status of American Indian tribe members in connection with 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924
Since such Indians were NOT natural born citizens from Day 1 on 4 July 1776, then how can FOREIGN parent folks have their kids magically become natural born U.S.A. citizens — by being intentionally or accidently being within the U.S.A. when a kid is physically born ???
A nonstop giant race to the U.S.A. border by hoards of FOREIGN pregnant women — LEGAL and of course ILLEGAL aliens ???
MINDLESS IDIOCY by armies of LAWLESS New Age LEGAL HISTORY MORON barbarians — who have total contempt for the Constitution — for them — mere words on a piece of paper.
In other nations foreign invaders get shot or arrested and thrown in jail — see the recent North Korean 2 reporter females and the moron lost folks on the Iraq-Iran border.
#18 The British Parliament before 4 July 1776 passed a number of naturalization laws for how foreign folks could change their nation-state allegiances and become subjects of the British monarchy.
Note the *uniform* naturalization in Art. I, Sec. 8 — replacing all of the 1776-1789 State naturalization laws. See the 1790 U.S.A. naturalization law.
What day will the party hack Supremes rule on Obama’s qualifications ???
Re: ‘Since such Indians were NOT natural born citizens from Day 1 on 4 July 1776, then how can FOREIGN parent folks have their kids magically become natural born U.S.A. citizens — by being intentionally or accidently being within the U.S.A. when a kid is physically born ???”
Indians were not natural born citizens because they were not citizens. But they certainly were Natural Born, meaning “born in the country.” Once the law was changed to make Indians citizens, the ones who were born in the country were naturally Natural Born Citizens.
ONLY the kids whose parents are U.S.A. citizens — natural born or naturalized — become more natural born citizens.
NOT exactly high tech needing a legal computer.
Same stuff in ALL rational regimes.
Other kids born are foreign — or in the pre- 1924/1940 case of the American Indians — more American Indians (i.e. formerly internally foreign).
When will a 100 percent U.S.A. citizen – American Indian be elected Prez ???
Re: “ONLY the kids whose parents are U.S.A. citizens — natural born or naturalized — become more natural born citizens.”
The original meaning of Natural Born was simply “born in the country.” It comes from the common law and from the laws in the US colonies and early states. And the framers of the Constitution and leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution wrote to each other and wrote articles in which the term “Natural Born” was always used to mean “born in the country” and never meant “two citizen parents.”
The word Naturalize comes from Natural Born. It means to make someone who was not born in the country like someone who was born in the country, not like someone with two citizen parents.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.†(December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.†(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
The Wall Street Journal wrote: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth†or a “native citizen†on the one hand and a “natural born†citizen on the other. “Eccentric†is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”
Blackstone’s Commentaries — on the laws of England
1765-1769 — used in a zillion editions up to and past the U.S. Civil War —
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-110.htm
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 10
Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives
HAVING, in the eight preceding chapters, treated of persons as they stand in the public relations of magistrates, I now proceed to consider such persons as fall under the denomination of the people. And herein all the inferior and subordinate magistrates, treated of in the last chapter, are included.
THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.
********
14th Amdt, Sec. 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, [[ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,]] are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
emphasis added to words in brackets.
Sorry — the old American Indians and ALL foreign folks were NOT *subject to the jurisdiction* of the U.S.A. government for having kids born in or out of the U.S.A. area.
Hard to understand ONLY for legal history MORONS — of which there are lots — due to rotted publik skoools for about 200 years.
Re: “the old American Indians and ALL foreign folks were NOT *subject to the jurisdiction* of the U.S.A. government for having kids born in or out of the U.S.A. area.”
The words “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to legal jurisdiction. Everyone in the USA is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, meaning that they have to obey the laws of the USA while in the USA, EXCEPT for foreign diplomats, and at one time, Indians on Reservations.
Indians were always considered Natural Born, which simply meant “born in the country,” but they were not considered citizens, so they could not of course be Natural Born Citizens. The children of foreign diplomats were not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, so they were not considered Natural Born.
Everyone else born in the USA is considered Natural Born.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling held (six to two):
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
As you can see, it says EVERY child, except for the children of foreign diplomats or a hostile occupying force. In another part of the ruling, it says that even the children of foreigners who were in the country temporarily were also Natural Born.
#29 The party hack Supremes can write whatever they want — they do it in every opinion.
How many times have they overruled earlier Supremes ???
Illegal aliens are technically alien enemy invaders.
How many highly pregnant illegal aliens are racing to the U.S.A. border each day ???
Most legal aliens are in the U.S.A. for very limited legal purposes — tourists, temporary business, students, etc.
The legal aliens undergoing the U.S.A. naturalization process are still aliens until they take the oath to defend the Constitution.
i.e. Wong Kim Ark is one more piece of illogical / irrational JUNK by the Supremes waiting to be overruled as the earliest chance — perhaps in an Obama case.
Natural Born = at birth allegiance to a regime.
Naturalization = change of allegiance.
Too difficult for the MORON party hack Supremes to understand.
See the Erie Railroad case in 1938 — overruling a mere about 98 years of idiocy regarding alleged *federal common law* in the U.S.A.
Conservatives say that they want to have justices who practice “strict construction,” meaning not to read into the meaning of the Constitution something that it does not say. The Constitution does not say “two citizen parents.” It does not say “no children of foreigners.” It does not say “no dual citizens.”
It simply says “Natural Born,” which at the time meant “born in the country.” Moreover, the lawyers at the time believed that legally anyone who was born in the country had allegiance to that country, and no other country.
Madison, for example, wrote: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
What applies in the United States according to Madison? Place, birth in the country.
And Blackstone says that a citizen can have ONLY one allegiance, and that allegiance is to the place where she or he is born. So, the lawyers at the time did not believe that dual nationality could affect allegiance or Natural Born status.
If you would like to exclude the children of aliens, or illegal aliens from being president, change the Constitution. Right now, they are eligible.