Comment: Considering Perkins vs. Elg,

(See in situ)


Considering Perkins vs. Elg,

Considering Perkins vs. Elg, where only one parent needed to be a citizen for the defendant to be considered natural-born.

Also, consider that British common law specifically defined citizenship as something that passed through the father, with the highest level of citizenship being that of someone born to a father of England, while in England. The founders heavily borrowed from BCL.

Even Vattel's work, while using "parents", is a stretch to say it meant both parents. After all, littered throughout the law of nations as well as Vattel's other work is the notion that everything is passed through the father, including national loyalty. This is also consistent with how citizenship was decided during the founders' time; it was the father's blood that mattered, moreso even than locale.

Lastly, why didn't the founders simply say that? If they had wanted to say that the president could only be "a natural born citizen of two citizen parents," or "of at least one citizen parent," they could have and would have done so.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a