Got it. An obscure newspaper article overrides multiple Supreme Court decisions, not to mention constitutional amendments.
Glad to have that cleared up.
You don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about. Minor vs Hapersett established legal scotus precedent that the natural born citizen definition = two citizen parents & born of this soil.
Freerepublic is such a tremendous resource and place of learning- we truly are blessed for what Jim has created her.
PS to everyone: am I the only freeper that looks forward to what Spaulding posts on this topic? Hope he chimes in on this one, it looks to be a great find.
Laughable.
I apologize; in re-reading my response, I came off pretty harsh. I just get frustrated over the issue of whether this has been ruled on or not. It clearly has, so much so that nefarious forces have seen fit to scrub online resources for the SCOTUS cases in question.
No offense intended.
Got it. Supreme Court decisions Clearly violating the Constitution and later "reversed," with or without Constitutional Amendments, prove that Supreme Court decisions are permanent and inviolate.
Got it.
It's more of a stretch than that. If one actually reads the article linked the author references the "Act of 1802" and quotes the Naturalization Act
The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents’ being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.The author "Publius" also says "In my judgement, our minister erred in his decision - & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States." He goes on to suggest that the law should be amended, but is clear that "We are not considering what the law ought to be, but what it is."
One must conclude that either Donofrio didn't actually read this article very well, or is dissembling about what it contains. I'll assume the original poster was misled by Donofrio's comments and did not read the article at the link.
No amendment has ever changed Article II, Section 1.
So why bring up amendments?
Supreme Court decisions back up this interpretation. Read Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Born in the country to citizen parents = exclusive definition of natural-born citizen.
Glad to have that cleared up.
HA! You are pathetically trying to spin it. As a matter of fact, the TRUTH does override court decisions. Any decisions in conflict with the truth were wrongly decided. (Which is my position from the very beginning)
Other examples of WRONGLY decided court decisions are Kelo v New London and Roe v Wade. Anyone who thinks the courts are infallible is an idiot.