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.
Hello, noobie.
If it is settled law, then why are Democratic-socialist lawyers, like Sarah Herlihy, demanding Article II, Section 1, be changed?
Here’s why - when the Court held that Virginia Minor was a citizen under Article 2, Section 1, because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. It is United States law, period.
* * * * * * * * * * *
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American [sic],” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policymakers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.
...Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ms.Herlihy, in the title and body of her paper, gave the game away, noobie.
This is about destroying the United State of America so as to establish a socialist utopia under the rubric of Globalism.
All those items you mentioned are meaningless, because there is a huge gulf between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’.
You can find the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’ as recognized by the Feds here:
U.S.Citizenship & Immigration Services - Citizenship
(There is no mention of natural born citizenship because it isn’t a statutory type of citizenship.)
Natural born citizen ONLY appears in U.S.law, specifically in the U.S.Constitution, as an eligibility requirement to be President. It is an eligibility requirement, like being age 35 or being a resident in the U.S. for the past fifteen years.
No one has the right to be President. One must be eligible.