““It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]”
It is her opinion, NOT settled law. I’ve already told you once, she is a left-wing shill.
It is her opinion, NOT settled law. I’ve already told you once, she is a left-wing shill.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 (1964)
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U. S. 605, 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 658.
In Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 22 (1913), the Court ruled:
“These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101;Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827.
and in Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, (1939):
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries, and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of 331*331 the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of twenty-one years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be `right reason’, and I think it is law.”
and also, United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, (1929):
“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens. All alike owe allegiance to the Government, and the Government owes to them the duty of protection. These are reciprocal obligations and each is a consideration for the other.” Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22.
SatinDoll wrote:
[I had quoted:] ““It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]”
It is her opinion, NOT settled law. I’ve already told you once, she is a left-wing shill.
Pryor’s assertion passed peer review to appear in the Yale Law Review. What’s more, no one can find any record of anyone disagreeing — that is — not until just recently when people wanted to argue that Barack Obama is not allowed to be president. If I’m wrong on that and, as you claim, it was not settled law in 1988, just show me some reference from our time — but before Obama became a candidate — that disagreed. Please don’t bother showing arguments from before U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was dicided (1898), or talking about people born before the 14’th Amendment (1868). I’m not claiming that it was already clear and settled when Charles Evans Hughes was born in 1862.
What have you got? As I cited to literature of the discipline, Gordon wrote that the eligibility of the native-born was clear in 1968, and Prior wrote that it was well-settled in 1988. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or was the name-calling the best you can do?
Pryor and Gordon had no partisan axe to grind. As history turned out, their articles helped Republican presidential candidate John S. McCain III. While the eligibility of the native-born was already clear and well settled, “whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.” [Pryor 1988] John McCain was just such a person, and their papers helped resovle that he was eligible.