So Judge Malihi equates citizenship at birth with Art. II natural born citizenship and the constitution grants congress the authority to pass laws regarding citizenship.
USC Title 8,1401 states the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
So if I understand the ruling correctly, all these children after attaining the age of 35 and having resided in the US for a period of 14 years are eligible to hold the office of POTUS.
>>...So if I understand the ruling correctly, all these children after attaining the age of 35 and having resided in the US for a period of 14 years are eligible to hold the office of POTUS...<<
It would depend upon how one defines “Natural-Born-Citizen” as it appears in Art.II. Is it defined the way it was commonly held and accepted during the time of the framing of our Constitution -or- do you define it as a few judges in clear defiance of common-sense have done?
My point: The courts could legalistically re-define anything commonly-held today (ie: “marriage”). It does not make it true outside of the courtroom in the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately, too many of us (citizens and politicians) accept court rulings that defy common-sense at face value out of some perverted belief that the courts are superior and infallible. Hence, there’s not much we can realistically do about it.
The problem is that this does NOT follow the legal precedents that were cited. The Supreme Court only used English common law to prop up the 14th amendment, not to define natural-born citizenship. That had already been exclusively and decisively defined in Minor v. Happersett. That unanimous decision made it clear that natural-born citizenship was outside the province of Congress. This was the question that Ankeny said was left open, but was in reality, fully addressed by the Minor court. A 20th century nationality act is irrelevant. It does not and cannot override the Constitution.
Hey, loucon, do yourself a favor and look at the name of @USC Title 8
It's ALIENS AND NATIONALITY, not Citizens and Nationality