OK, one last time, just for you, and I'll try to be real clear: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1372213 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 802683 you people havent denied that the only interpretation of "natural born citizen" is by a foreign Swiss philosopher
So far you people havent denied that the only interpretation of "natural born citizen" is by a foreign Swiss philosopher. You havent denied that "natural born" isnt defined in the Constitution. And you havent denied that a judge ruling in 1964 wasnt even referring to Obama's circumstance. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1372213
IOW you people are idiots who continually lie and spread lies for your own narrow purposes.
If you want to complain about Obama do it from intelligence and a truly INDEPENDENT perspective, not a partisan one that only feeds the machine.
Reread Minor vs Happersett. The US Supreme Court cited, and upheld, the Swiss philosopher de Vattel's definition in that case, word for word.
Cite it and I'll give it serious consideration. So far, I see blogs that cite words not quite saying what you mean to say, but then spin it to their agenda. I would love to see a US SC ruling citing a Swiss 18C anti revolutionary colonialist. lol
Here, once again, is de Vattel's definition of natural born:
[link to www.constitution.org]
<snip from Emerich De Vattel's work Law of Nations
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
"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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."Now here is the US Supreme Court, citing the exact definition from de Vattel, practically word for word. I've even bolded the matching text from both de Vattel above, and from the SCOTUS opinion, below:
United States Supreme Court
* Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
"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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."