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.
The Constitution itself is living proof we are not subject to a king.
That was true for a full eleven years before we even had a Constitution. Hence, that can hardly have been one of the Constitution's purposes or priorities.
You seem very confused. You have been corrected on your error here at least twice now. Perhaps the third time will be a charm?
Both his parents were American citizens.
The onlySCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC:
Quote:
"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."
We KNOW Kennedy was born in the U.S. So that, along with his U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth, makes him... a Constitutional NBC and therefore, eligible.
The Venus Case did not, since it used a translation of Vattel that did not include the phrase "natural born citizen" at all. And Dred Scott (a decision so bad the Constitution was Amended to correct it) is exactly "one."
You want to give us a list of these several others?
It is easy to debunk the spin of the perpetual Obot.
"Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Chief Justice Fuller
Lets continue for a moment with the rest of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court statement quoting Vattel:
"As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;
and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Book I, c. 19, § 212.
"The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage... .
The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction."
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.