Fashion legancy– we sell famous brand christian louboutin

100% Authentic, 50% discount cheap christian louboutin shoes.

christian louboutin shoes authentic hot sell online, welcome for retail and wholesale christian louboutin,
christian shoes, louboutin shoesorders.

24 hours/day customer service online, louboutin paypal accepted.

Hi, I like to lose weight!
thanks for your shareing
Recently so many people who want to lose weight choose this style shoes– mbt shoes!

we call it massaqi shoes, it is special design have lose weight function.

come to our website, and choose cheap mbt shoes online, 65% discount mbt shoes Cheap MBT Shoes sale online.

welcome for retail and wholesale mbt shoes orders.

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Barack Hussein Obama being born under the British Nationality Act of 1948 due to his father not being an American Citizen but a Brit was born a British Subject. Therefore he falls under our first Supreme Court Justice's opinion that he should not be eligible for the office of POTUS. What part of these truths do “you” disagree with?

I have read all of your copy pasted arguments(which you clearly do not have the necessary legal education to understand or you would have seen how illogical they are) and can't help but feel personally offended by them.

You continue to cite the John Jay letter as using the term “natural born citizen” but ignore what this term would have meant to Washington and Jay. You also cite Vattel's 'Law of Nations' as a source for the understanding of the term.

However, in Western Europe there are two major systems of law, Common Law and Continental/Roman Law. The common law system, which was practiced in England at the time and is most certainly the law with which the founding fathers would have been familiar with describes “Natural Born Citizens” as all those citizens born under the jurisdiction of the Crown of England. Because common law forms the bedrock of our legal system and determines almost all its rules of construction, “Natural Born Citizen” (barring specific constitutional language, or statuatory law, of which there is none concerning this.) would be defined in the United States as :

“A Natural Born Citizen is any citizen born under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.”

The concepts of Jus Solis and Jus Sanguinis (What you describe as “born on American soil of American parents” is based on Continental Law, a system never practiced in the United States ir England. It is true that “Natural Born Citizen” means citizens that satisfy jus solis and jus sanguinis in countries that practice continental law (France, Italy, Spain et al.) it has *NEVER* meant this under common law; and it is *Highly* unlikely the founding fathers would have inserted continental law terminology in a common law document like the constitution.

Therefore, barring *VERY SPECIFIC* language in the constitution defining “Natural Born Citizen” along the lines of “A natural born citizen is a citizen by right of both jus sanguinis and jus solis” (terminology found in many constitutions around the world, but not the U.S's) we *MUST* assume the common law terminology of: “A natural born citizen, is a citizen by right of jus solis”

Additionally, the Supreme Court (The highest institution that interprets the constitution in this country) concurrs with me on this point in their majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford:

” The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...]”

Although I have seen you non-chalantly dismiss SCOTUS majority opinions; bear in mind that the majority opinions constitutes a rule of construction and therefore does have legal weight when interpreting SCOTUS' decision.