Ok Constitutionalists: What Is The 'Original Intent' Of The 14Th Amendment?

He simply points out that that is something Great Britain USED to do.

But as I have pointed out in many like threads here, we have numerous examples in our OWN Laws which say the same thing.

Any time "Natural Born" is specifically noted they say "Born to U.S. Citizen Parents" (please note the plural).

Why do you suppose that is?

 

Well the Constitution doesn't say that at all.

And the laws you are talking about specifically notes that those born outside the United States to U.S. Citizen parents are Natural Born citizens.

By your reasoning, I could say "Any time "Natural Born" is specifically noted, they say "those born outside the United States to U.S. Citizen parents are Natural Born Citizens"- which by inference would mean that no one born within the U.S. is a natural born citizen.

Birthers love creative editting when it comes to quoting the law.

 

As I have pointed out many times, they say that because they are talking about Naturalization. None of the SCOTUS decisions that aren't based on being foreign born say that, yet they too cite being Born of U.S. Citizen parents.

Why do you suppose that is?

As for a specific notation in the Constitution. They were all learned men and their undertanding fit the description given by Vattell, since many of them, if not most, were very familiar with his work. George Washington himself was found to have that very book in his Library at the time of his death.

 

Frankly I can't follow what you are referring to. Be specific and I will respond.

They were learned men. and there is not one bit of evidence that any of them considered Vattell when deciding on citizenship in the Constitution. And since there was not a single English interpretation of Vattell that uses your definition at the time the Constitution was written, that unless you believe in time travel, it wasn't likely to be the source.

 

IMO from what i've read the 'in the jurisdiction' part is referring to a political jurisdiction, not a physical jurisdiction. I would think if the authors of the amendment were indeed talking about a physical jurisdiction then the 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' would be redundant.

Here is what Sen. Jacob Howard,the main author of the amendment, says about it.

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

 

Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938 )
Was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which rendered a decision reported at Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling which found that Elg who was born in the United States to citizen parents was in fact a “natural born citizen”.

Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Explained that the 14th Amendment does not provide the standard for defining a “natural born Citizen” and in fact does not even mention the clause. Even Wong Kim Ark, when it gave us its definition of a “natural born Citizen,” cited and quoted Minor and made no reference to the 14th Amendment as it did in deciding whether Wong, who was born to alien parents, was a “citizen of the United States.”

Those are just 2, there are a few more if you need me to cite them. But I would like to see how you respond to these to.

Likely I am going to see another simple dismissal from you, but I thought I would try...

 

Since they were Naturalization Acts, there was no need to make reference to anyone Born here. They simply wanted to clarify that someone Born abroad to Citizen parents was in fact Natural Born, just like if they were Born here. I am not surprised you continue to ignore that and make such idiotic statements.

You understand what Naturalization means, right?

Hint: It doesn't mean Natural Born.

 

They affirm that being Born to U.S. Citizen parents makes you Natural Born.

Sorry you don't see that.

 

I just love the term 'Anchor Baby'. It cracks me up every time I see it.

 

Minor v. Happersett is about voting rights NOT citizenship. Read the case.

 

They do exactly as I said they did. They only cite being Natural Born as having U.S. Citizen parents at Birth.

And hence the reason I cite it.

I am not surprised you can't address that.

 

I didn't mention what it was about, I simply cited where they cite Natural Born, and what they said about it.

Any time Natural Born has been cited by the SCOTUS they have in fact said it takes U.S. Citizen parents, period.

Doesn't surprise me that you don't understand that.

 

Try University of Cornell.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

 

Read the case.. you are completely mistaken..

Any child born on US soil is a Natural born US citizen at birth..

Remember.. there are ONLY two kinds of US citizenship.. Naturalized and Natural Born.

Now open the cover of your US passport.. and read it.

 

No where in any SCOTUS ruling does it say what you claim it does.

No wonder you can't supply a link to something which specifically states that, since it isn't true.

There are many stupid people that think being Born a Citizen makes you a Natural Born Citizen, but if that were true there would have been no need for the 14th Amendment to recognize your Citizenship.

 

I have already supplied you with a link..

If you and your wife are US citizens and you are working in Qatar, having a baby.. You go to the US Consulate and register the birth.. They footprint the baby and issue him/her a US passport as a Natural born US citizen..

If you and your wife are foreign nationals, tourists, foreign students or migrant workers and have a baby on US soil.. that baby is a natural born US citizen.

Remember.. there are ONLY TWO kinds of US citizens.. Naturalized and Natural born.. Now look at the inside cover of your US passport..

I can tell instantly whether you are Natural Born or not.

 

Man made Law cannot change Natural Law, no matter how much you wish it did...

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Wong Kim Ark recognized the double allegiance created in Wong by being born to alien parents and by allowing him to be a U.S. “citizen.” Still, the Court, because of its concern that so many children and adults then living in the U.S. would be considered aliens, was willing to find Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Needless to say that such policy decisions belong to Congress and not the judicial branch of government. At least Wong Kim Ark, notwithstanding its sweeping change of citizenship law in the United States through judicial naturalization, did not go so far as to hold that Wong was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark recognized the difference between a “natural-born citizen” child born in the United States to citizen parents and a “citizen” child born in the United States to alien parents. Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted the American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” which Minor had confirmed in 1875. Wong Kim Ark therefore accepted that definition and did not disturb it. This means that with the time-honored American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” never having been amended by constitutional amendment, Congress (not to imply that it could), or U.S. Supreme Court decision, today a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is the legally-recognized consensus definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” confirmed by both Minor and Wong Kim Ark. Since Obama was born to an alien father, he cannot satisfy the “citizen parents” prong of this definition. Obama is therefore, if born in the United States, a judicially naturalized Fourteenth Amendment "citizen," created by positive law (the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)) other than strictly American “common-law.” He is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," created by natural law and positive law which became the law of nations and which the United States adopted as its American “common-law.” Not being a “natural born Citizen,” Obama, like Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal (both born in the United States, but not to U.S. citizen parents), is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

 

Oh please.. It has NOTHING to do with "Natural Law"... Its clearly spelled out in US LAW.

Apuzzo is a failed lawyer and a con man who is living off of birther donations.

 

My Passport isn't used to recognize whether I am eligible to be President or not. It is simply used to recognize whether I am a Citizen or not.

But nice try.

 

U.S. Law cannot change Natural Law.

If they had not meant for us to recognize the Natural Law, why do you suppose they specifically cited "Natural" Born? You think they wanted to exclude those not Born Naturally?!?!?!?

LMAO!!!!

Give me a break!