DiogenesLamp wrote: “I routinely cite the case of Rogers v Bellei to disprove the ‘born’ argument. Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian Father and an American Mother. He was an American citizen at birth because congress passed a law declaring the offspring of a single American parent to be a ‘citizen.’”
In one of the very few cases where a real court has spoken to Article II eligibility, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California cited that very case, Rogers v Bellei. Markham Robinson petitioned for a preliminary injunction to remove Panamanian-born John S. McCain III from the ballot. In order to rule, the Court assessed the likelihood Robinson winning on the merits, and cited Rogers v Bellei in the context:
“Article II states that ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.’ Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970).” [Robinson v. Bowen]
The Court doesn’t seem to agree with DiogenesLamp’s interpretation of Rogers v. Bellei. Furthermore, of McCain’s status the Court wrote, in part:
“Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.”
That is not some anti-birther. That’s how the law and the precedents played in a real court, before a real judge. Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?
Fox News Bill O'Reilly is not a natural born citizen. Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Chinese born in the US are not natural born citizens. The list goes on and on. Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution. The Framers placed this type class of citizen into a Kind. If you are not a part of this Kind you are a foreigner to the Framers. IMHO the 14th Amendment created citizens but could not make a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is not created by law. The Framers believed they were descendants of the Anglo Saxons race.“Article II states that ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.’ Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970).” [Robinson v. Bowen]
The Court doesn’t seem to agree with DiogenesLamp’s interpretation of Rogers v. Bellei. Furthermore, of McCain’s status the Court wrote, in part:
You have presented a non-sequitur. Nothing in the cited court example contradicts my point. A "born" citizen, is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen." Bellei was obviously a "born" citizen, but not a "natural born citizen."
That is not some anti-birther. That’s how the law and the precedents played in a real court, before a real judge. Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?
As I mentioned, I do not see where the court even touched upon the point I made by citing Rogers v Bellei, but apart from that, I do not worship the court. They are not my god, though they may be yours. A court is not infallible, nor do I treat anything they say as if they were, ESPECIALLY those Ignorant courts of California.
I have a simple rule. If something is wrong and stupid, I treat it as if it is wrong and stupid, even if it is said by a court.
Apologies for spoiling your point, but this quote doesn't substantiate its claim. Yes, Rogers v. Bellei recognized that Congress has to power to naturalize, but the second sentence is undermined by the first. Art II talks about natural-born citizen and citizenship at the time of the Constitution. IOW, it's recognizing TWO principles of citizenship that pre-exist the Congress and its power to naturalize. Further, your case says:
... thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen ...
Do you honestly believe that someone can be retroactively rendered a natural-born citizen??? You said this judge wasn't an anti-birther, but logic like you've shown from the case says otherwise.