Replies

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw] Your theory- A woman can fly into LaGuardia from Iran, have the baby in the airport bathroom, fly back to Iran and raise the next iteration of terrorist/Ayatollah, then fly him back to run for president 50 years later.

I accept your admission that you are unable to argue based on the law. All the court opinions, the statute laws and the state department policies are against you8r birther blather.

Have another helping of Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 Owen 236, 250 (1844)

6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was Ibiind by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed, and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important and more deeply felt in reference to political rights, than to rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle. The legislative expositions speak but one language on this question. Thus the various acts on the subject of naturalization which have been passed by Congress presuppose that all who are to be benefited by their provisions were born abroad. They abound in expressions of this sort, viz;: the "country from which he came;" all "persons who may arrive in the United States;" the country whence they migrated is to be stated, and the like. This language is inappropriate to a person who was born here, and wholly inapplicable to one who has always resided in the country. If Julia Lynch had remained here till she was of age, the argument in regard to her citizenship would be no different, because during the intervening time she would have been incapable of election, in this state, the constitution adopted by the people in 1822, provides that no person except a native citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the office of governor. Native citizen is used as contradistinguished from citizens of foreign birth, and as a term perfectly intelligible and definite. It is based upon the assumption that there was a known rule of law, ascertaining who were native citizens of the United States; and as has already been shown that there was no such rule known, except that of the common law.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw] You are a moron.

If you say so, but you are getting repeatedly pummeled by a moron.