I understand that you are trying to pervert the Constitution of the United States - a document I defended for 20+ years in uniform and attempting to do as a civilian. You have no authority and you have no idea of what you are talking about. You make up laws that suit your agenda. You are an empty lantern.
As far as anchor babies, they may or not be qualified because their parents are here illegally - that is a matter to be decided. It was never an issue in the 1700’s. When a man like Madison himself says “born of the soil is the law of the United States,” and not some off the wall Vattel crap, that sort of makes you a liar doesn’t it?
Another thing, genius, at least 20% of American citizens at the time of the Revolution were Loyalists, never supported the revolution much less shed blood for it, yet were eligible to be the president.
The way I was raised, if you had a beef with someone or criticized someone you did it to his face like a man, not a coward. You belittled Mr Rogers, a patriot, yet you didn’t include him to read your stupid remarks. Nice!
Supreme Court cases that cite
“natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814):
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830):
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875):
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Article II SuperPac
I understand that you are trying to pervert the Constitution of the United States - a document I defended for 20+ years in uniform and attempting to do as a civilian. You have no authority and you have no idea of what you are talking about. You make up laws that suit your agenda. You are an empty lantern. And you are a fool. You do not know what I know, You are not familiar with my arguments, yet you believe you understand enough to discuss this topic. You know not, and know not that you know not.
As far as anchor babies, they may or not be qualified because their parents are here illegally - that is a matter to be decided. It was never an issue in the 1700’s. When a man like Madison himself says “born of the soil is the law of the United States,” and not some off the wall Vattel crap, that sort of makes you a liar doesn’t it?
You Presume to speak for Madison. He first says that Had South Carolina had a law regarding citizenship, this question would never have to be addressed by the Congress. The implicit point here is that a positive law trumps custom. He then goes into a long explanation about how Mr. Smith's family were among the first settlers, and his inheritance is in South Carolina. The salient point which you do not have the wit to comprehend is that Mr. Madison is arguing a Jus Sanguinus claim for his citizenship.
Another thing, genius, at least 20% of American citizens at the time of the Revolution were Loyalists, never supported the revolution much less shed blood for it, yet were eligible to be the president.
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of American History. The loyalists suffered greatly here in the United States. Many of them ended up fleeing to Canada because of the discrimination they faced from those who backed the U.S. Others went back to England.
The way I was raised, if you had a beef with someone or criticized someone you did it to his face like a man, not a coward. You belittled Mr Rogers, a patriot, yet you didn’t include him to read your stupid remarks. Nice!
Mr Rogers is an obsessed, passion driven nut who keeps putting out the same drivel regardless of what evidence is presented to him which contradicts it. He has been barbecued by opposing facts so many times people are sick of looking at his sh*t. Mr. Rogers has a personal interest in believing what he believes. You, on the other hand, are just an ignorant fool who believes crap that people have told you.
Grow Up! Research this stuff yourself! Quit listening to what you've been told, figure out the truth! Here, i'll give you some help! Back in 1844, a New York Court ruled that because the State of New York did not have a citizenship law, they would use English Common law to decide that a child born in New York of an English father was an American citizen.
In 1845, the legislature of the state of New York responded by creating a citizenship law. Guess what? It prevents the children of transient aliens from being citizens!
So okay genius, if your understanding of American law is correct, How did the state of New York Exclude the children of Transient Aliens from citizenship? What happened to your "born on the soil" theory?