For Those Who Claim Cruz Is Not A Citizen

[Skylar]

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

From what I have read, that was a common interpratation for some time.
there was ALWAYS an (s) on parents. As in two Ameican parents.

Nope. It was always place of birth. Here's the fundamental standard cited by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark on the matter:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

With James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' affirming the same principle regarding allegiance, the beating heart of natural born status:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Place of birth is where citizenship is derived. Citizenship by blood isn't embodied in the constitution. But granted by statute. As the State Department makes ludicrously clear:

(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

So the question is whether citizenship that is NOT embodied in the constitution but instead granted by statute is 'natural born citizenship'.

If you use an originalist interpretation......Cruz has problems.

If you use the living document interpretation, Cruz has no problems.

Cruz is an originalist.

 

[OKTexas]

Doesn't matter if Cruz is an originalist or not, this thread is about what make a natural born citizen.

And the answer to that question is based on if you're using an originalist or living document intepretation of the constitution. By the originalist interpretations, Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. By living document standards, he is.

Given that Cruz is an originalist, would it not be reasonable to apply his own constitutional standards to himself?

Of course if you want to go by what many of the founders believed, and use their standards, citizenship can be denied because of race. Constitutionally as stated in the article, there are only two types of citizens mentioned, people born a citizen and people naturalized as citizens, there is no third category.

So you're arguing against an originalist definition of natural born citizen? That what the founders considered a natural born citizen when they wrote the constitution is irrelevant to the meaning of the word today.

Very 'living document' of you. I'll hold you to the 'living document' standard in the future.

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

The old common law standard is place of birth. As affirmed by the court in Wong Kim Ark. With James Madison affirming that allegiance followed place of birth. And citizenship embodied by the constitution only followed place of birth.

Citizenship by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But authorized by statute that was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified.

You on the other hand, want to play semantics games. Enjoy.

I'm simply using the actual standards. Not those you imagine.

This is the article little stevie was talking about. My bold

Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Read more at Attorney Responds To Harvard Law Review Publication On Article II Natural Born Citizen - Birther Report

Your standard was 'no one is natural born unless both their parents were citizens'. You made no mention of place of birth. Despite your own source affirming that natural born citizenship required birth inside the US. And Happersett doesn't even mention those born outside the US as 'natural born citizens', hypothetically or otherwise.

And since Cruz wasn't born in the US, nor were both of his parents US citizens.....by your own standard, he can't be natural born.

If not, why not?

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Skylar]

And the answer to that question is based on if you're using an originalist or living document intepretation of the constitution. By the originalist interpretations, Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. By living document standards, he is.

Given that Cruz is an originalist, would it not be reasonable to apply his own constitutional standards to himself?

So you're arguing against an originalist definition of natural born citizen? That what the founders considered a natural born citizen when they wrote the constitution is irrelevant to the meaning of the word today.

Very 'living document' of you. I'll hold you to the 'living document' standard in the future.

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

The old common law standard is place of birth. As affirmed by the court in Wong Kim Ark. With James Madison affirming that allegiance followed place of birth. And citizenship embodied by the constitution only followed place of birth.

Citizenship by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But authorized by statute that was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified.

You on the other hand, want to play semantics games. Enjoy.

I'm simply using the actual standards. Not those you imagine.

This is the article little stevie was talking about. My bold

Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Read more at Attorney Responds To Harvard Law Review Publication On Article II Natural Born Citizen - Birther Report

Your standard was 'no one is natural born unless both their parents were citizens'. You made no mention of place of birth. Despite your own source affirming that natural born citizenship required birth inside the US. And Happersett doesn't even mention those born outside the US as 'natural born citizens', hypothetically or otherwise.

And since Cruz wasn't born in the US, nor were both of his parents US citizens.....by your own standard, he can't be natural born.

If not, why not?

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

Happersett said there have been doubts about those were born in the US to aliens. But they never indicated that they weren't natural born.

With both Wong Kim Ark and Madison indicating that place of birth is the basis of allegiance. Not parentage.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

The old common law standard is place of birth. As affirmed by the court in Wong Kim Ark. With James Madison affirming that allegiance followed place of birth. And citizenship embodied by the constitution only followed place of birth.

Citizenship by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But authorized by statute that was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified.

You on the other hand, want to play semantics games. Enjoy.

I'm simply using the actual standards. Not those you imagine.

This is the article little stevie was talking about. My bold

Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Read more at Attorney Responds To Harvard Law Review Publication On Article II Natural Born Citizen - Birther Report

Your standard was 'no one is natural born unless both their parents were citizens'. You made no mention of place of birth. Despite your own source affirming that natural born citizenship required birth inside the US. And Happersett doesn't even mention those born outside the US as 'natural born citizens', hypothetically or otherwise.

And since Cruz wasn't born in the US, nor were both of his parents US citizens.....by your own standard, he can't be natural born.

If not, why not?

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

Happersett said there have been doubts about those were born in the US to aliens. But they never indicated that they weren't natural born.

With both Wong Kim Ark and Madison indicating that place of birth is the basis of allegiance. Not parentage.

So you're saying you want it both ways, good job. Children are raised with the allegiances of their parents, not necessarily the country where they were born, just look at our illegal immigrant populations and their spawn, they try to bring their cultures here and many refuse to adopt ours.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Setting the record straight on "naturalized citizen" according to our Founders, as to be implied when interpreting the United States Constitution.


United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

 

[Skylar]

The old common law standard is place of birth. As affirmed by the court in Wong Kim Ark. With James Madison affirming that allegiance followed place of birth. And citizenship embodied by the constitution only followed place of birth.

Citizenship by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But authorized by statute that was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified.

I'm simply using the actual standards. Not those you imagine.

This is the article little stevie was talking about. My bold

Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Read more at Attorney Responds To Harvard Law Review Publication On Article II Natural Born Citizen - Birther Report

Your standard was 'no one is natural born unless both their parents were citizens'. You made no mention of place of birth. Despite your own source affirming that natural born citizenship required birth inside the US. And Happersett doesn't even mention those born outside the US as 'natural born citizens', hypothetically or otherwise.

And since Cruz wasn't born in the US, nor were both of his parents US citizens.....by your own standard, he can't be natural born.

If not, why not?

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

Happersett said there have been doubts about those were born in the US to aliens. But they never indicated that they weren't natural born.

With both Wong Kim Ark and Madison indicating that place of birth is the basis of allegiance. Not parentage.

So you're saying you want it both ways, good job.

Laughing....no, you said I want it both ways. You can't quote me saying it.

I've said that your own source, Happeresett.....doesn't indicate that ONLY those born to two parents in the US are natural born citizens.

Meanwhile, I've cited the Supreme Court and James Madison indicating that allegience follows place of birth. Not parentage. With English Common Law recognizing natural born status even for those born to two aliens. And the State Department confirming that citizenship by blood is *not* embodied in the constitution. But is granted via statute.

Which kills any originalist arguments on the topic. You're left only with living document interpretations. When Cruz's own standards of originalism are applied to his eligibility......he's probably not a natural born citizen.

Children are raised with the allegiances of their parents, not necessarily the country where they were born, just look at our illegal immigrant populations and their spawn, they try to bring their cultures here and many refuse to adopt ours.

Neither the founders nor the Supreme Court recognized 'children are raised with the allegiance of their parents'.

You're citing yourself. And you're constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

Setting the record straight on "naturalized citizen" according to our Founders, as to be implied when interpreting the United States Constitution.


United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

That actually disproves your argument. As it was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified. And demonstrates, undeniably, that citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution....

.....else why would Congress have had to add it by statute after the Constitution was ratified?

 

[OKTexas]

This is the article little stevie was talking about. My bold

Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Read more at Attorney Responds To Harvard Law Review Publication On Article II Natural Born Citizen - Birther Report

Your standard was 'no one is natural born unless both their parents were citizens'. You made no mention of place of birth. Despite your own source affirming that natural born citizenship required birth inside the US. And Happersett doesn't even mention those born outside the US as 'natural born citizens', hypothetically or otherwise.

And since Cruz wasn't born in the US, nor were both of his parents US citizens.....by your own standard, he can't be natural born.

If not, why not?

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

Happersett said there have been doubts about those were born in the US to aliens. But they never indicated that they weren't natural born.

With both Wong Kim Ark and Madison indicating that place of birth is the basis of allegiance. Not parentage.

So you're saying you want it both ways, good job.

Laughing....no, you said I want it both ways. You can't quote me saying it.

I've said that your own source, Happeresett.....doesn't indicate that ONLY those born to two parents in the US are natural born citizens.

Meanwhile, I've cited the Supreme Court and James Madison indicating that allegience follows place of birth. Not parentage. With English Common Law recognizing natural born status even for those born to two aliens. And the State Department confirming that citizenship by blood is *not* embodied in the constitution. But is granted via statute.

Which kills any originalist arguments on the topic. You're left only with living document interpretations. When Cruz's own standards of originalism are applied to his eligibility......he's probably not a natural born citizen.

Children are raised with the allegiances of their parents, not necessarily the country where they were born, just look at our illegal immigrant populations and their spawn, they try to bring their cultures here and many refuse to adopt ours.

Neither the founders nor the Supreme Court recognized 'children are raised with the allegiance of their parents'.

You're citing yourself. And you're constitutionally irrelevant.

Now you're just ignoring the intent stated during the proposal of the 14th, just like the court did. BTW the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, making it just as statutory as any law passed subsequent to it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Setting the record straight on "naturalized citizen" according to our Founders, as to be implied when interpreting the United States Constitution.


United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

That actually disproves your argument. As it was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified. And demonstrates, undeniably, that citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution....

.....else why would Congress have had to add it by statute after the Constitution was ratified?

It does not disprove it at all. I am sure there was a need to render clarity of certain terms such as "naturalized citizens", in aiding the nation with respect to how it may be effectively and accurately governed. This is not to be the first time that certain "terms", which left undefined might provide uncertainty or interpretation outside of what the Founders had initially intended. Eastablishment, which used in the defining of religious freedom and the role of government within the First Amendment, was also expanded and defined with guidelines that express the view's and intent of the time through the views of those who wrote it.

Clearly our Constitution provided the core by which this nation is to be governed in very limited terms. Still, the document in itself is but a basic "structure" and certain terms are not clearly expressed and expanded upon. Let me add that the early Congress of 1790 would have direct access to the views of those who wrote the specific articles and clause in question, and would be able to establish with great accurately what the Founders meant by "naturalized citizen".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ted Cruz, natural born American, born in Canada...

 

[nat4900]

I agree that Ted Cruz is completely eligible to be President, but I can't help but notice that you never bothered to post thsee arguments when Obama's citizenship was being attacked on exactly the same lines...

Well stated and oh so damn true......BTW, since we are "interpreting" the Constitution to fit one's preferences, what exactly does a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" really mean?

 

[Syriusly]

Your standard was 'no one is natural born unless both their parents were citizens'. You made no mention of place of birth. Despite your own source affirming that natural born citizenship required birth inside the US. And Happersett doesn't even mention those born outside the US as 'natural born citizens', hypothetically or otherwise.

And since Cruz wasn't born in the US, nor were both of his parents US citizens.....by your own standard, he can't be natural born.

If not, why not?

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

Happersett said there have been doubts about those were born in the US to aliens. But they never indicated that they weren't natural born.

With both Wong Kim Ark and Madison indicating that place of birth is the basis of allegiance. Not parentage.

So you're saying you want it both ways, good job.

Laughing....no, you said I want it both ways. You can't quote me saying it.

I've said that your own source, Happeresett.....doesn't indicate that ONLY those born to two parents in the US are natural born citizens.

Meanwhile, I've cited the Supreme Court and James Madison indicating that allegience follows place of birth. Not parentage. With English Common Law recognizing natural born status even for those born to two aliens. And the State Department confirming that citizenship by blood is *not* embodied in the constitution. But is granted via statute.

Which kills any originalist arguments on the topic. You're left only with living document interpretations. When Cruz's own standards of originalism are applied to his eligibility......he's probably not a natural born citizen.

Children are raised with the allegiances of their parents, not necessarily the country where they were born, just look at our illegal immigrant populations and their spawn, they try to bring their cultures here and many refuse to adopt ours.

Neither the founders nor the Supreme Court recognized 'children are raised with the allegiance of their parents'.

You're citing yourself. And you're constitutionally irrelevant.

Now you're just ignoring the intent stated during the proposal of the 14th, just like the court did. BTW the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, making it just as statutory as any law passed subsequent to it.

Your standard was 'no one is natural born unless both their parents were citizens'. You made no mention of place of birth. Despite your own source affirming that natural born citizenship required birth inside the US. And Happersett doesn't even mention those born outside the US as 'natural born citizens', hypothetically or otherwise.

And since Cruz wasn't born in the US, nor were both of his parents US citizens.....by your own standard, he can't be natural born.

If not, why not?

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

Happersett said there have been doubts about those were born in the US to aliens. But they never indicated that they weren't natural born.

With both Wong Kim Ark and Madison indicating that place of birth is the basis of allegiance. Not parentage.

So you're saying you want it both ways, good job.

Laughing....no, you said I want it both ways. You can't quote me saying it.

I've said that your own source, Happeresett.....doesn't indicate that ONLY those born to two parents in the US are natural born citizens.

Meanwhile, I've cited the Supreme Court and James Madison indicating that allegience follows place of birth. Not parentage. With English Common Law recognizing natural born status even for those born to two aliens. And the State Department confirming that citizenship by blood is *not* embodied in the constitution. But is granted via statute.

Which kills any originalist arguments on the topic. You're left only with living document interpretations. When Cruz's own standards of originalism are applied to his eligibility......he's probably not a natural born citizen.

Children are raised with the allegiances of their parents, not necessarily the country where they were born, just look at our illegal immigrant populations and their spawn, they try to bring their cultures here and many refuse to adopt ours.

Neither the founders nor the Supreme Court recognized 'children are raised with the allegiance of their parents'.

You're citing yourself. And you're constitutionally irrelevant.

Now you're just ignoring the intent stated during the proposal of the 14th, just like the court did. BTW the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, making it just as statutory as any law passed subsequent to it.

No- the intent of the 14th Amendment is clear from both its language and the discussion during Congress.

There is a reason why the 14th Amendment does not discuss the 'allegiances of a child's parents'

 

[OKTexas]

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

Happersett said there have been doubts about those were born in the US to aliens. But they never indicated that they weren't natural born.

With both Wong Kim Ark and Madison indicating that place of birth is the basis of allegiance. Not parentage.

So you're saying you want it both ways, good job.

Laughing....no, you said I want it both ways. You can't quote me saying it.

I've said that your own source, Happeresett.....doesn't indicate that ONLY those born to two parents in the US are natural born citizens.

Meanwhile, I've cited the Supreme Court and James Madison indicating that allegience follows place of birth. Not parentage. With English Common Law recognizing natural born status even for those born to two aliens. And the State Department confirming that citizenship by blood is *not* embodied in the constitution. But is granted via statute.

Which kills any originalist arguments on the topic. You're left only with living document interpretations. When Cruz's own standards of originalism are applied to his eligibility......he's probably not a natural born citizen.

Children are raised with the allegiances of their parents, not necessarily the country where they were born, just look at our illegal immigrant populations and their spawn, they try to bring their cultures here and many refuse to adopt ours.

Neither the founders nor the Supreme Court recognized 'children are raised with the allegiance of their parents'.

You're citing yourself. And you're constitutionally irrelevant.

Now you're just ignoring the intent stated during the proposal of the 14th, just like the court did. BTW the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, making it just as statutory as any law passed subsequent to it.

You're right, and I could live with that, of course your dear leader wouldn't be either, be careful what you wish for.

Happersett said there have been doubts about those were born in the US to aliens. But they never indicated that they weren't natural born.

With both Wong Kim Ark and Madison indicating that place of birth is the basis of allegiance. Not parentage.

So you're saying you want it both ways, good job.

Laughing....no, you said I want it both ways. You can't quote me saying it.

I've said that your own source, Happeresett.....doesn't indicate that ONLY those born to two parents in the US are natural born citizens.

Meanwhile, I've cited the Supreme Court and James Madison indicating that allegience follows place of birth. Not parentage. With English Common Law recognizing natural born status even for those born to two aliens. And the State Department confirming that citizenship by blood is *not* embodied in the constitution. But is granted via statute.

Which kills any originalist arguments on the topic. You're left only with living document interpretations. When Cruz's own standards of originalism are applied to his eligibility......he's probably not a natural born citizen.

Children are raised with the allegiances of their parents, not necessarily the country where they were born, just look at our illegal immigrant populations and their spawn, they try to bring their cultures here and many refuse to adopt ours.

Neither the founders nor the Supreme Court recognized 'children are raised with the allegiance of their parents'.

You're citing yourself. And you're constitutionally irrelevant.

Now you're just ignoring the intent stated during the proposal of the 14th, just like the court did. BTW the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, making it just as statutory as any law passed subsequent to it.

No- the intent of the 14th Amendment is clear from both its language and the discussion during Congress.

There is a reason why the 14th Amendment does not discuss the 'allegiances of a child's parents'

OK, what ever, evidence to the contrary has been posted numerous times, I'm not going to rehash it again.