(posted at western journalism.com - blog titled 'Maj. Gen. Paul Valley On Obama's Forged Birth Certificate' by Daniel Noe, Jan. 25 - on Jan. 26 at 7:25pm, in reply to one (of many) by 'ellen', who is a staunch Obamabot, and claims (& claimed at her post that I responded to/simply had to respond to) that "(t)he meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen". I - shall I say - disagree:)
I trust that you would support this case going to the Supreme Court for adjudication on the full facts of the matter? Which facts would include:
1) the fact that the Framers of the Constitution - who were fully conversant with de Vattell's '[The] Law of Nations', particularly through the influence of [fellow Framer] Benjamin Franklin - set the qualification bar particularly high for the office of the presidency, AND THAT OFFICE ONLY, in order that any candidate for that office would not have dual loyalties or allegiances, which would be the case if the candidate's father was not also a U.S.citizen. This requirement was embedded in the Constitution on the advice of John Jay - who was to become the first Chief Justice of the fledgling constitutional republic - in a letter to G. Washington, in his role as president of the Constitutional Convention, with Jay noting in warning that the president would also be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the new nation, and should not have such conflicting allegiances. Thus, NO DUAL CITIZENS for that particular office;
2) the fact that the Framers were not using English common law; which talks, in such matters, about 'subjects'. They were no longer subjects of the British crown, or any crown; they were sovereign citizens in their own right, and went by American common law or Natural Law. (This fact was confirmed in a letter by George Mason to that effect. I don't have a reference for it handy. It could come out in a case before the Supreme Court on this issue);
3) the fact that the XIVth Amendment talked/talks ONLY about 'citizens' , and its authors even specifically saying that it was NOT about 'natural born' citizens, thus separating/distinguishing the two categories;
4) the fact that Chester A. Arthur had to hide the fact that he was not a 'natural born' citizen, had dual citizenship. (The facts came out after he had died.)
I won't belabor the point. The point is,that there is [a] wealth of evidence to demonstrate that your take on the matter - and the take of too many lower courts - is not the correct take on it. So the sooner this matter - this terribly important constitutional matter - makes its way to the Supreme Court, the better.
For a good, comprehensive overview on the whole matter, see lawyer Mario Apuzzo's research, at puzo1.blogspot.com.