In this paper, I prove the original intent of the "natural born Citizen" (NBC) clause at Art. II, §1, cl. 5.
David J. Edwards is the one who found the evidence that our Founders & Framers relied on Vattel!
It is not WHERE one is born, but rather the citizenship status of one's parents, which determines whether one is "a natural born Citizen" w/in the meaning of Art. II, § 1, clause 5, U.S. Constitution.
This article has relevance to the NBC status of obama, rubio, etc.
It is also relevant to the NBC status of John McCain: it matters not one whit WHERE he was born, b/c his parents were U.S.Citizens at the time of his birth.
It is also relevant to the citizenship status of the Mexicans born within these United States of parents who are here illegally. They are not NBCs!
Attached may be what you are looking for. Just received today from Facebook friend.
Janice, The school records have never beeen refuted, why this does not bother the sheep I have no clue.
BUT the rest of that post has been said to be BS( foi request) just like Barry h o Soetoro. I truley do not understand what it is going to take for the followers of his to realize what trouble we face.
I understand that by allowing this, whatever he is, to continue we are in a way agreeing that the Constitution is irrelevant. Is this so?
I know I keep asking about this issue but I want to understand it. Obama is not elligible. I understand that. Why do I keep hearing about elligibility issues with Santorum? It is said his father WAS NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Yes, he was born in Virginia so that makes him a citizen. The same issue has come up with Rubio. His father did not get his citizenship untill Marco was 4. He was born on American soil. I am unable to find proof of anything differant. Is Santorum or Rubio elligible or if Obama has been able to skirt the issue will that set a precedence?
Erler's article explains that location of birth is not what determined citizenship when the 14th Amendment was ratified. e.g., When wives of foreign diplomats stationed here gave birth here, their babies did not become U.S. citizens - the babies took the citizenship of their parents. American Indians born here did not become U.S. citizens. All those babies were born here, but they were not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (Sec. 1, 14th Amendment) b/c their parents weren't subject to that jurisdiction. Under that principle, children of Mexican illegals born here wouldn't be U.S. citizens, either.
Citizenship here was to be determined by law - not by "mere location of birth". Erler's article explains why that is important. Yes, his article may require outlining - but with wordpress and color coding, it's easy and colorful.
This whole issue is confusing simply b/c we hear so much misinformation about it.
I don't have the link handy for the U.S. Code section which discusses who is a citizen.
The Natural Born Citizen (NBC) issue is a different issue: We must go by the definition of the term used when Our Constitution was ratified. If we change the definition, we'd be amending the Constitution in violation of Article V.
I am convinced, by my research on this - which is consistent with what the "birther" attorneys have found - that a NBC is one whose parents - at the time he was born - were U.S. citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Thus, John McCain - who was born in the Panama Canal Zone - is a NBC b/c his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born.
I don't have any documented Facts on the citizenship status of Santorum's or Rubio's parents at the times they were born.
So! One can be a "citizen" w/o being a NBC.
Thank you for the clarification. I'm sorry I keep asking about this but I just didn't understand and I wanted to. I understand it now.