I know of no legal scholars that think Roe v Wade is GOOD law. Even the Supreme court couldn't think of a good reason to retain it except "Stari Decisis"! (Which means Shut the F*** up! We've made up our minds, and facts won't change it!)
There are absolutely no respected conservative legal scholars and judges that accept the NBC = two citizen parents.
There are TWO, quite respected conservative legal scholars who have written articles that say being born on our soil DOES NOT MAKE YOU even a CITIZEN. (Let alone a "natural born citizen.") I am going to post links to their articles, but I can tell it is a waste of time to tell you ANYTHING. No piece of evidence will wake you up. Hell, you can't even READ the stuff i've shown you so far.
I don't expect either one of them to knock any sense in you either.
We know what the Supreme Court feels about the issue - the Chief Justice swore in Obama.
That is one possible explanation. Another is that he is IGNORANT about the correct meaning of "natural born citizen." Another is that he may have known what is correct, but felt it was in the interest of the nation to ignore it. (As the court did with the last Roe v Wade challenge.) You really are a simplistic thinker. I can usually see several possibilities with any group of facts.
There is no published legal thought on the matter (beyond birther websites).
Well, there's John M. Yinger
There is Notre Dame President Charles E Rice.
There is Alexander Porter Morse.
There is the Essay written by Legal scholar and Ambassador Breckenridge Long."
There is the Opinion of this Law book from Harvard.
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;
...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.
...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
et al.
Yeah, other than that, we got nothin.
Rube.
Pardon me while I just post a little keyword item for myself for your “most excellent” and thorough reply.
Both George Will and Ann Coulter want to deny birthright citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Nothing about imposing a two citizen parent rule.
From Ann:
“For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.”
From George:
“Graglia says this decision “seemed to establish” that U.S. citizenship is “a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.” So: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”
Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”
I agree with both, by the way.
Nothing about two parents. Notice that Ann like WKA?
Couple of things:
John Yinger is an Economist.
“John Yinger is Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics; he also directs the Education Finance and Accountability Program”
Charles E Rice is not the president of Notre Dame, just a retired professor. He does not argue for two citizen parent. He wants Congress to investigate. He says Obama may be eligible.
Alexander Porter Morse. 1904? He is talking only about children born overseas. He does not explicitly support the two parent rule in America:
“It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible”
Ramsey? Prior to the 14th Amendment. Superseded.
Your Breckinridge Long essay? You understand he worked for Woodrow Wilson and this is a political hit piece on Charles Evans Hughes who in 1916 was running against Wilson?
George Collins? A tiny snippet from a losing lawyer embedded in a long news article? Really?
The “Book from Harvard”? Out of context snips on a birther website in a essay written by “Linda Melin, citizen researcher”?
Solum is a good article but makes no stand either way. His paper is a discussion on the proper way to interpret Constitutional language to determine original intent.