I know, because it doesn't help your argument.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible for the Office of President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Easy. Nothing to it, and in facts backs up Wong!
From you:
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
WHAT THAT is saying, is that no “statute” can define what natural born citizen is, because the Constitution is where that term is contained, and you can’t AMEND the Constitution by statute. Obvious. Congress can’t pass a law to Amend or interpret the Constitution. If they could, we would all have to run for the hills! Congress could decide that a “militia” is the national guard and take our guns. Changes to the Constitution or interpretations thereof are by Amendments or judicial interpretation. And Thank God it is!
parsy, who figured there was more to it.
| WOW, Buckey, I'm impressed. Very Good. We here have been pointing this out to After-Birthers for about 16 months now, but it's still good to see you trying to help instruct Parsley that there are more than two types of Citizens:
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.The only Federal office that requires the person be a "Natural Born Citizen" is as equally UNIQUE as — under our Constitution — there is only ONE Head of State. There can be only ONE, and by its very nature, the office of President has unique Eligibility requirements as set forth by the Framers. |