Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Here's a link which through debunked the WND-pushed Vattel argument:
RATHER, the Founders were using the long established and widely used tradition of Jus Soli, already law in the States at the time of the Constitution.
Never would they imagine that people would question the citizenship of a citizen born on US soil, based on a modern translation of a French book,
which contradicted the law of the States and the English Common Law concept of Jus Soli.
I am discussing court cases not language, but how Supreme Court Justices viewed it.
You all act like there was never any question on the issue from any justice when in fact there was serious dissenting opinion, and they were NOT
ignorant of law!
to quote from the dissenting opinion from Fuller and Harlan in Ark
The civil rights act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided 'that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any
foreign power, excluding Indians [169 U.S. 649, 720] not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.' And this was re-enacted
June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes (section 1992).
The words 'not subject to any foreign power' do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born
in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that,
nevertheless, they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in
the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.
The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents merely being domiciled in the country; and it is single, and
not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a
country is not recognized.
No one is taking into consideration SCOTUS in Minor, and the dissenting opinions on cases like Ark, there is question concerning 'natural born'! And
using Ark to determine case law is ridiculous considering Justice Gray controlled his own fate by presiding over an opinion, the outcome of which
decided the very legitimacy of his appointment to the Supreme Court!
It is fact that until the age of 22 Obama had a dual citizenship by right of birth which has never been taken seriously, and dissenting opinions are
simply overlooked as if they do not exist..
Obama will set precedent, that someone born in the United States can hold dual citizenship for the majority of their life and still be president...
this is precedent, the question is, is it really a precedent that is upheld in the true spirit of the constitution?
edit on 16-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)