The conclusion our modern courts, i.e., since the 2009 Ankeny case wherein:

"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

have drawn from the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, is based on English common law. But would the founders and framers of the US Const. have agreed?  

This question lies at the very heart of who we, as Americans, are, as the founders, framers, and ratifiers of the US Const. not only thought themselves to be, but who they actually were as a result of their Declaration of Independence.

Why Common Law Citizens Are Barred from being President

By A. Nash.

"If one’s nationality, or citizenship, was tied to one’s subjection to the king, but he and his authority no longer reigned, then by what principle would one be a citizen?  That is a question that has never been legally addressed to this day.  It goes unanswered still as a matter of law.  Instead the answers are purely matters of policy or matters of circumstances.  [The two common law circumstances are enshrined in the 14th Amendment (with the United States substituting for the King).]  But the founders’ generation was very much not of one mind on the subject."

For more, click here

ex animo


Views: 25


You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service