He might be a ascending but he doesn’t ascend to the level of being an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. He’s not one. His parents weren’t naturalized citizens when he was born.
This issue of natural born citizenship comes up a lot on Free Republic.
Some Freepers say, that both of your parents must have been citizens at the time of your birth, for you to be a natural born citizen.
Other Freepers say, that if you were born in America, you are a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of your parents. Those Freepers say that you are natural born, if you didn’t have to go through the naturalization process, to become an American citizen.
And then other Freepers say, as a practical matter, no court ruling will ever prevent an American citizen born in America from running for president. Those Freepers take the position, that the courts will never intervene to prevent anyone from running for office, if they are American by birth.
Which Freepers are we to believe?
AGREED
PLEASE HELP ME KEEP THIS IN FRONT OF OTHER FREEPERS.
that is what i needed to know about the guy TRUMP 2024!
According to the Supreme Court he is.
That horse left the barn 15 years ago. I yield to no man in love of the Constitution, but if the other side is going to get to nominate whomever they wish on the basis of winning, then we have to accept their rules of engagement.
I do not plan to vote for Ramaswamy, but for different reasons.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s sad when Democrats turn their backs on the Constitution when it gets in the way of their ambitions. It is heartbreaking when a Republican tries to do the same thing.
Any first-year law student who studies statutory
construction knows that a general clause, such as the 14th Amendment Citizenship clause, cannot govern a specific clause, such as the natural-born citizen clause of
Article II. They also know that each and every word in the U.S. Constitution has a specific meaning. Unless Congress has specifically stated “all citizens at birth
are natural born citizens, “the court MUST give each clause a separate legal effect.
In this case, the difference between natural-born citizens and statutory citizens is those born to citizen parents and those that are not.
And the Supreme Court had already ruled on your argument years ago. You are wrong
“natural born Citizen. He’s not one”
Agreed.
Failing Florida Man ain’t t neither.
Born 1978. Mom Naturalized in 1983.
Guess who’s Natural Born a business success, and NOT a descendent of former Slave owners?
Our PDJT, The GOAT.
Roll MAGA, roll!
Totally irrelevant, Vivek was born in the United states and that's all that is required.
Maybe you can explain how Kamala Harris and Bobby Jindahl were able to run for office when their parents weren't naturalized citizens.
The Original Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States
Wrong, but you are wrong about most things
He might be a ascending but he doesn’t ascend to the level of being an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. He’s not one. His parents weren’t naturalized citizens when he was born.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...
Wasn’t that qualification thrown under the bus in ‘08?
He was born in the United States and therefore is a natural born citizen. See 2 United States Supreme Court decisions:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
Applying Euorpean rules to the US is unAmerican. Go back to Europe if you like it so much.
Obama’s dad was naturalized?
He was born in Cincinnati. So he can run.
He might be a ascending but he doesn’t ascend to the level of being an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. He’s not one. His parents weren’t naturalized citizens when he was born.>>> When were they naturalized? I’ve looked and can’t find anything.