Lying through your foul teeth, troll.
> natural born citizen
You are both wrong. The constitution mentions the phrase but never defines it. The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or 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.”
This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as “natural born”, stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.
In a 2012 New York case, Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections, the plaintiff challenged Barack Obama’s presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that “natural born citizen” required the president “to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents”. To this the Court responded, “Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil”. The opinion then listed Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover.
That’s the facts, Jack.
-SB
over the age of eighteen.
“At least one citizen parent ON US SOIL, makes one a natural born citizen.”
“Lying through your foul teeth, troll.”
Don’t you think that’s a little harsh over a single difference of opinion on a hotly debated topic?