The Constitution is, what it is, very short and to the point. About 95% of your posting have been a violation of the Constitution as written by the framers.<quoted text>
You answered it wrong today. Do YOU have anything new to post?
How about you try to explain how these two writers, who knew the writers of the Constitution could be, in your opinion, both wrong, when they both indicated that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth?
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
And how about you try to explain how the US Supreme Court, which is the final judge on the meaning of the US Constitution, could be wrong when it wrote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
All of which say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, and there is no mention of parents.
And how could senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson all be so wrong as to say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and not the parents?
And how come so many courts have ruled that foreign born children in the USA are not merely US citizens at birth but Natural Born Citizens?
Come on, have you got anything new to contribute? Your previous answers were simply WRONG.
The USSC doesn't have the final say, the Constitution does, since it has jurisdiction over the USSC.