Here is what WKA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) says:
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
Let’s go thru that:
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
“the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”.
It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.
It says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is intended “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words” those exceptions discussed, that were true in the colonies as NBS, and in the US prior to the 14th as NBC.
Thus you have A & B, where the set of all A is identical to the set of all B, thus A = B. Or in this case, A = B = C:
“citizenship by birth within the country”, excepting “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”, and that was true in the colonies under NBS, true after the Constitution under NBC, and true under the 14th by intent of the writers in saying “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
Some here make a big deal about slaves not being citizens, but slaves were considered property under Dred Scott, and thus not capable of being citizens. And since so many people thought the Dred Scott case was an obscene rejection of “citizenship by birth within the country”, Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause:
“citizenship by birth within the country”.
That is why birthers get their butts handed to them in court, even when the other side doesn’t show up. YOU HAVE NO CASE!
It's an open and shut case against Obama. It's the Establishment who lie and cheat and whatever they else they can get away with because they are mental cowards. Yeah Ms. Rogers, cowards.
So when a child born of American citizen parents in Germany or whatever foreign county of his birth he is a natural born citizen? According to your "logic" he is an NBC of Germany or whatever foreign country of birth.
>>...Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause...<<
LOL! If the writers of the 14th had wanted to say Natural-Born-Citizen, they could have done so. The example in Article-II existed and was available for plagiarizing. They chose not to and stated quite clearly, “Citizen”.
Nope, the founders had a commonly held definition for NBC and that was born in a country to two citizen parents. They used that term to give additional integrity to the qualifications for President. That was their clear, unarguable intent. That subsequent black-robed scoundrels and politi-sluts have endeavored to twist and pervert the founders intentions does not change their original intent. It simply means that the those black-robed scoundrels and politi-sluts disregarded, disrespected and held no value in the founders original intent. The country is worse off because of it.
So, legalistically you are right. Revel in the smugness of your argument if you like. But you might as well wallow in a pig-sty for all the good it does you.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
----------------------
That may be what WKA says, but we know that interpretation is wrong by going right to the 14th Amendment's source, the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.Congressional Globe
The DNC has already admitted that Obama was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth.
If having a born dual national in the oval office spending us into ruin is legitimate, than yes, Mohammad Obunga is qualified.
If the Kenyan Mohammad Obunga is qualified, then my daughter can become a General in a foreign army and then return to the USA and become president.