It was very clear. I was giving an opinion.
However, the FAM you’ve cited even says that the use of natural born in the 1790 law DOES SEEM to imply that a child born overseas to US parents is a natural born citizen for purposes of presidential qualifications.
Otherwise, it would not say “does not necessarily imply”. “Does not necessarily imply” means that the weight is on the side of “does imply.”
If it did NOT imply, then it would have said, “does not imply”.
So, the Blackstone law book DOES actually say that children born to overseas citizens ARE natural born citizens. This is in line with ancient law that says (postliminium) a person’s rights are not lost simply by being overseas.
You really have no leg to stand on rollingstone. It’s time to give it up.
By your interpretation “dead terrorist” Yemeni Anwar al Awlaki’s anchor baby children are more qualified for the presidency than is Ted Cruz. A strict interpretation of the blackstone interpretation applied in both directions would deny that opportunity to Awalaki’s anchor baby kids.
you are very late to this party and apparently have an agenda and are trying to work “facts” to your agenda. I suggest you search FR on the subject or go back 3-5 years and read my posts or others on the subject
as a very good lawyer once told me a little knowledge of the law can be a dangerous thing...
US law does not follow Blackstone or
English law to the nth degree, and in fact Louisiana state follows Napoleonic law did you know that?
Maybe you should call up the State Department and tell them its a slam dunk!
regards