Get over it. You're not a lawyer. Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama's failure as a president...
you’re pretty funny.
you’re going on about someone being a citizen is completely irrelevant to the qualifications to become president.
all natural born citizens are citizens...
but not all citizens are natural born citizens.
there is a difference. do your homework, champ
“Don’t practice law without a license champ. Since the Supreme Court decided U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as conferring citizenship on anyone born in the U.S. Who are legally present in the U.S. Regardless of their parents’ citizenship status. The 14th amendment trumps the naturalization act, which by the way, has been amended many times now.
Get over it. You’re not a lawyer. Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama’s failure as a president...”
Amen! It is crystal clear to anyone who has even a vague understanding of the law that the Wong Kim decision makes anyone born in the US a citizen at birth.
There is no NBC v. citizen-by-birth-in-the-US distinction. And there is no official document that makes such a distinction.
There is 0, none, zero, nada mention in the Constitution requiring both parents to be citizens of the US to be a NBC elligible to be president. What we have is Article 2, the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and the US code defining citizenship pursuant to powers granted to Congress in Article 1. The Supremacy Clause says these count and Vatel or whoever doesn’t. End of story.
I think too many people are just lazy and don't want to do that.
Get over it. You're not a lawyer. Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama's failure as a president..
Perhaps it is you that should not be practicing law.
You wrongly apply the Wong Kim Ark case and misinterpret the 14th amendment. Your entire argument would be debunked by even a rookie lawyer in a very humiliating (for you) manner.
First off, both the Wong Kim Ark case, and the 14th amendment deal with basic U.S. citizenship status, not "Natural Born Citizen" status. There is no argument that since the 14th amendment, any person born on U.S. soil is instantly a citizen. That is why we have "Anchor Babies."
Now, let's look at the difference between "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen." The easiest way to do that is to look at the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2:
"No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."
Notice they talk about "Citizen."
Now, Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
Please note the additional standards required to become President as opposed to simply being a member of Congress. It is clear that a higher standard of 'Loyalty' was required to be Commander in Chief. The direct reference to "Natural Born Citizen" as opposed to "Citizen" of seven years clearly points out there is a difference between the two. What is the difference?
Back to the Constitution. Amendment XIV, Section 1, paragraph 1:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The 14th clearly states that ANY person born on U.S. soil is a "Citizen." It does NOT say they are a "Natural Born Citizen." Again, there is clearly a distinction between the two, and "Natural Born Citizen" status requires some extra requirements to be met.
Since "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined in the Constitution by a time frame, it can only mean that one or both parents must qualify as a "Citizen" at the time of birth.
We can now argue whether the Constitution requires one or both to be citizens at the time of birth, but the idea that the Obama eligibility case is closed is absolute fantasy.