First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills, our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.
Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese III’s 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.
It was like fate that the word ‘dual’ jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.
page 111:
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law. ~ Joseph Bassette
Meese’s full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:
1) America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land
2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so
3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress
Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II and replace it with ‘citizen’ as well as Congressional aactivities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.
Oh, wait, they didn’t need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.
Does it make it law? absolutely not!
Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!
Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nation’s national security & sovereignty that it does.
Constitutionally Speaking 
Questions on your “three facts that ring out loud and clear.”
This is actually two facts, not one.
If as you state “America has never legally recognized dual citizenship,” wouldn’t that require that the United States disregard any citizenships granted by other countries to folks that also hold American citizenship? How can our laws both not recognize dual citizenship (as you state here) and recognize it for the purpose of Article II eligibility at the same time? It seems to me you must either do one or the other if your fact is correct.
The second fact regarding what the framers intended is even more problematic. It is the equivalent of saying that the framers never intended Americans to play chess. The Constitution is silent on the issue. How is it you reach such certain knowledge regarding their intentions on this issue when they rather clearly made no effort to assert such intention in the document itself, or in any of the debate that led to its adoption?
Can you give us an example such a law that is relevant to this issue? I ask because the Constitution itself tells us what a President must be, not what a President must not be. It outlines three requirements and all are positive attributes. I am unaware of any court decisions that has added to or detracted from those three Constitutional requirements. Can you show us one?
I return again to the example of chess playing. There is also no statutory law allowing for the playing of chess that has ever passed out if the US Congress. Does congressional (or constitutional) silence on the issue imply prohibition? I think you would probably agree that it does not.
[patlin: the progressive movement is relying on the decision in Wong Kim Ark (WKA), which in an erroneous decision, in total disregard of laws recently passed by Congress & upheld by previous Supreme Court rulings. Justice Grey wrote in the deciding opinion that any person born on US soil, regardless of the parents nationality, was a citizen. Chief Justice Fuller wrote a scathing dissent in the case and also, let it be known that Grey wrote the deciding opinion in the Elk v Wilkins case that upheld the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 & the Expatriation Act of 1868 that finally put to rest any trace there could have been that the founding fathers & nation adopted a Cosntitution based on a feudalism form of government, the same type of government they had jsut fought a bloody war against. The 1866 Act, which was further upheld by the 14th & the Expatriation Act of 1868 stated:
“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
The inherent portion, all person born and not subject to any foreign power
The court in WKA referenced the Minor v Happersett case which stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Now, Grey in writing the WKA opinion, did declare WKA to be a citizen, however he failed to declare WKA a natural born citizen, but instead wrote:
“if born in the country, is as much a CITIZEN as the NATURAL BORN child of a CITIZEN” and
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’
And it is because of Justice Grey & WKA that the dual citizen was born, disreagrding the law.
To better understand, please visit the Heritage Foundation’s article, From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
read the article, then read the entire WKA ruling(link in the BHO & the stubborn facts page), its long, windy, bloviating with references to English Law & ruling of the English parliment & I suggest you read the 1st commentaries by Justice Wilson(links in the hitorical reference page) who was a framer of the Constitution. The framers did NOT use English common law, they cast it aside and started with a totally blank page and Wilson very eloquently walks you through the process.
Finally, I suggest you read the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution and its review of immigration & naturalization]