Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of England, yes, which is what U.S. v. Ark states.
Your reading comprehension erodes by the minute.
Quote:
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.
What part of "and in the United States" are you unclear regarding?
No, my reaction is that you don't have an argument.
The Constitution requires that the President be a natural-born citizen. But it doesn't define natural-born citizen. No subsequent law or ruling ever directly addresses what distinguishes a natural-born citizen from any other plain, old, everyday citizen that did not have to go through the naturalization process. Whatever evidence you have of what the writers of the Constitution meant when they used the phrase is interesting, but it's not the law. There are other writers who may have broader definitions. Moreover, the Jay reference is actually vague and open to interpretation. The court cases that birthers cite are not en pointe because none of those court cases actually deal with defining "natural-born" citizen, though they might use the term in their rulings. No court has actually defined "natural-born" citizen, because the only office that is reserved for natural-born citizens is the Presidency, and no court has ever heard a case on whether a President is legitimately a natural-born citizen or not. The fact that previous Presidents have had foreign-born parents, and may have enjoyed dual citizenships at birth renders your argument meritless, because the weight of precedence (Previous Presidents sharing circumstances of birth similar to President Obama would be legal precedent.) would outweigh correspondence by political persons at the country's founding, and would outweigh analyses of ours and foreign countries' citizenship policies by non-Americans. You can insist all you want that your definition is the proper one, but it's not the legal one, because it's not incorporated into the law at any point in our history. You can fight to change the law to reflect your opinion, but that won't have any bearing on the current presidency. The birther argument is just simply irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
Well then, let's just have the Supreme Court test it.
The same rule that made the child of aliens a natural born British subject in England, makes the child of aliens a natural born US Citizen in the United States.
No, my reaction is that you don't have an argument.
In your opinion. But that would make you have to ignore the significance of Jay's letter as the origination of the NBC clause in the Constitution.
Oh, wait... I get it. You're a proponent of revisionist history (in the illegitimate distortion sense). The actual events and facts don't matter. Things are as you 'believe' them to be.
"Reverse impressment?" What does that even mean? It sounds like it means setting somebody free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
The Supreme Court has ruled on at least a dozen occasions that reverse impressment will not hold water.
As far as I can tell, there is really no such thing as "reverse impressment."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
