Parental Allegiance and Singular U.S. Citizenship

Parental Allegiance and Singular U.S. Citizenship

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on July 26, 2014 at 9:34 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=15

<<>>

MichaelN said...

Parental allegiance is a consideration in determining US citizenship of the native-born to alien parents.

Parental allegiance is a consideration in determining US citizenship of the off-shore born to citizen parents.

Why would parental allegiance not be a consideration in determining a native-born US citizen's eligibility for the office of POTUS?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is my comment about the absolute necessity of singular “parental allegiance” for singular U.S. citizenship for their child and the singular allegiance of the child.

On Point Dittos...

MichaelN asked an excellent on point question on July 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM.

>> "Why would parental allegiance
>> not be a consideration
>> in determining a native-born US citizen's eligibility for the office of POTUS?"

To add a 1787 John Jay lemon twist flavor to the allegiance question, I ask:

Why would two U.S. citizen parent's allegiance NOT be THE primary consideration for POTUS eligibility by the Obama neo-birthers, the “one U.S. citizen parent” is good 'nuf neo-birthers, in 2000s America?

Why?

'Cause Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.

John Jay's higher hurdle of "two U.S. citizen parents" historical original genesis intent is irrelevant to the Obama neo-birthers 'cuz the lower hurdle of birth inside the U.S. to ONLY “one U.S. citizen parent” is good 'nuf—until a Democratic POTUS aspirant arises who has a different lineage, maybe birth inside the U.S. to "zero U.S. citizen parents" OR maybe birth outside the U.S to one OR two U.S. citizen parents. You never know with people who do not care about the original intent of the original writers, unless their own "original intent" is ridiculed.

'Nuf said, right?

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

You are correct. The Maskell/Obots use a time machine to interpret the Constitution. What they do is take current events, get in their time machine, and go back to the time of the Framing of the Constitution. They then act as though today’s events not only existed then but were actually considered by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. They use this absurd approach with the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, acting as though the Framers knew all about being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that they accepted such Fourteenth Amendment language, which according to Wong Kim Ark allowed a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and residents in the United States who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders to be a citizen of the United States at birth, as sufficient to define not only a citizen, but also a natural born citizen.

And regarding children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, they simply turn a blind eye to all the real changes that early Congress made to its Acts which determined the citizenship status of those children which hurt their position, and pick those parts which suit their interest.

In short, the Maskell/Obot position on a natural born citizen is nothing but a fraud.