page 666:
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm
http://www.jstor.org/pss/27530990
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=toc&pg=PA61&id=IsJOmPyODiwC#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46)
Although this legal history was never explicitly addressed at the Constitutional Convention, Morse's view is similar to a statement by Charles Pinckney in 1800, namely, that the presidential eligibility clause is designed “to insure ... attachment to the country” on the part of the President. This statement is discussed in more detail below.
Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms “native-born” and “natural-born.” The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines “native-born” as “belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein” and “natural-born” as “having a specified status or character by birth.”(47) If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, “it would only have been necessary to say, ‘no person, except a native-born citizen.’”(48)
This statement from Professor Yinger as well as his conclusion states specifically that children born to American parent(S), yes both are the ‘natural born’ citizens and is also backed by the census records of 1790-1880 which is in the 1st link above beginning on page 666. The United States did NOT adopt any form of dual citizenship when ratifying the constitution and that is backed by the current US State Dept's statement: US law does not recognize dual citizenship.
So, in other words, “I HAVE PUT UP”, but I will not demand you to shut up, That is just plain rude and not in the nature of a patriotic & conservative constitutionalist.
Let me know when you are ready for more like the above. My library is deep.
Somehow I knew a Birther would not like wiki! You know why? Wiki is just way too simple. They cut to the chase and since they give cites, its pretty easy to check up on them.
But, I digress. I am glad that you have a deep library. That means there is hope for you. You are at least, literate. You might be one I can save.
It is pretty much useless to dissect treatises. Treatises, and statements are not the law. All they are good for in this case, is to gauge the Framer’s intents. But they aren’t needed. You know why? BECAUSE SCOTUS HAS ALREADY DONE IT! It’s the WKA case. Read the WHOLE DURN THING!
Most of it is the discussion of treatises, and who said what, and what it meant. They done put all that stuff into the mixing bowl and came out with a decision. It ain’t that hard. Let me hit some of the highlights.
1. If you are born here, you are a citizen, based upon the common law of England, which is how the Framers saw things.(There are a few exceptions, including Indians)
2. There ain’t but two kinds of citizens - Them what was born here, and them that is naturalized.
3. Congress can naturalize some more if it wants, but it really can’t cut out somebody who was born here.
4. The English common law called them Natural Born Subjects, and that is fine, but Natural Born Citizen just sounds nicer, since we ain’t got a king, no more.
SOOOOOO....with that in mind:
Obama was born here, so he’s a citizen.
He ain’t a naturalized one, so that makes him a
Natural Born Citizen.
Okay. That’s it. Rummage your library. Read some books. It can’t hurt you. I would recommend that you stay away from Edna the Whip Lady. It might cause nightmares.
Twist it, dissect it, split hairs over it, just have a merry old time. But WKA provides most of the relevant law, and that tends to make Obama an NBC, and legitimate president. Period.
parsy, who hopes you will at least stop calling the non-Birthers names since it is you guys who have a really high hurdle to jump and a real huge burden of proof to meet to come anywhere near overturning the law.
Oh, and BTW, your sources ain’t that hot. Yinger does less analyses by far of the Framers’ intent than the WKA Court. The “Story” treatise is N/A since Story was discussed in WKA. Heritage, wouldn’t have to worry about birthright law impact, unless birthright applied. Which it does. And which is in that wiki link you find so funny. Jstor won’t let me past the first page. I typically try to read further than that. The immigration investigation thing is weird to me somehow.
parsy, who did look