Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Tennessee Nana; one guy in new jersey
I knew that my son born the year before in the US was not eigible to be POTUS...

I was not an American citizen at the time and was not naturalized as an American citizen until he was 8 months old..

you can argue until you are blue in the face but that was the law when my son was born in 1974...


Please take this in the respect I mean it in. Your "knowledge" notwithstanding.

Same question TNana I've been asking everyone else:

Show me in the US Constitution where your opinion/position/knowledge is codified that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be "Natural Born".

Lacking that, please provide the relevant US Law(s) passed by Congress and signed by a US President that codifies your understanding/opinion/knowledge that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be "Natural Born".

Lacking that, please point us to the relevant US Supreme Court decision/ruling that proves that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be "Natural Born".
16 posted on 08/27/2013 11:30:41 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: SoConPubbie

Show me in the US Constitution where your opinion/position/knowledge is codified that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be “Natural Born”.

Lacking that, please provide the relevant US Law(s) passed by Congress and signed by a US President that codifies your understanding/opinion/knowledge that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be “Natural Born”.

Lacking that, please point us to the relevant US Supreme Court decision/ruling that proves that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be “Natural Born”.


All three questions could be asked in reverse as well. That’s why this is such an important discussion.


20 posted on 08/27/2013 11:34:14 AM PDT by nesnah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie; Tennessee Nana; one guy in new jersey
"Show me in the US Constitution where your opinion/position/knowledge is codified that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be "Natural Born". "

The Constitution wasn't written as a dictionary, save for Article III, Section III. You must look "elsewhere" to find their intent.

"Lacking that, please provide the relevant US Law(s) passed by Congress and signed by a US President that codifies your understanding/opinion/knowledge that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be "Natural Born". "

Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to define a "natural born Citizen." They only have the power of naturalization.

"Lacking that, please point us to the relevant US Supreme Court decision/ruling that proves that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be "Natural Born"."

No SCOTUS case has ever been heard, and decided, regrading the "natural born Citizen" requirement for the office of Commander in Chief.

25 posted on 08/27/2013 11:39:23 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie; Tennessee Nana

Quite correct, SoConPubbie - the Constitution does not define what “natural born citizen” means, nothing in U.S. Code that deals with citizenship differentiates citizenship at birth from “natural born” citizenship in any fashion, and the only relevant case law says that citizen at birth is the same as “natural born”.

Where the Obama case is different is that his mother’s status at the time of his birth may not have automatically granted him citizenship if he was not born inside the United States (there has been some argument over exactly what the law was at the time, and I have not seen the end result of that argument).

McCain, of course, was born to two citizen parents, so even though it was outside the country, he was a citizen at birth and by the reasons above, a natural-born citizen.

Cruz’s case is the most like the proposed Obama case (assuming birth outside the US), but there can be no dispute that he is a citizen by birth because his mother’s status clearly passes the test (residing in the US for a minimum of 10 years and minimum 5 after age 14) that was in place at the time, so Cruz is also a natural-born citizen.


30 posted on 08/27/2013 11:42:52 AM PDT by kevkrom (It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie

Please see my reply re SCOTUS’s 1875 Minor v. Happersett decision to another commenter. Thanks.


277 posted on 08/27/2013 6:46:31 PM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson