Here is the argument I used on this exact issue in constitutional law having fun with my professor one day. I am not looking to debate you. This reply is so others are not confused by your 'flawed logic'
The U.S. Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, stipulates that only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible for the presidency. The 14th Amendment further clarifies that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." To be a citizen of any type those are the only two options.
If a presidential candidate has never undergone the naturalization process, this eliminates the possibility of them being a naturalized citizen. This leaves two only potential categories for the candidate:
1) a natural-born citizen or
2) an illegal alien
Given the scrutiny of a presidential campaign, it's highly improbable that an illegal alien could advance without significant legal challenges and threat of deportation, thus, the only conclusion is that the candidate is a natural-born citizen.
I will ignore the nuances in U.S. immigration law, which present additional considerations such as being born abroad to American parents or being born in a U.S. territory since those are not being argued as with John McCain.
Carry on.
I am reminded of what Leon Trotsky said. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Also what black people say. "Don't start no sh*t, won't be no sh*t. :)
This reply is so others are not confused by your 'flawed logic'
I'm not sure how you can find the flaw in an argument I haven't even presented. I pointed out a piece of evidence. Where is the flaw in that?
The 14th Amendment further clarifies that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." To be a citizen of any type those are the only two options.
And the 14th amendment citizenship is an en masse naturalization process.
If a presidential candidate has never undergone the naturalization process, this eliminates the possibility of them being a naturalized citizen.
*THIS* is flawed logic. A "candidate" can be an alien. Given the past performance of our incompetent Judicial system, It wouldn't surprise me if an Alien made it all the way through and was elected. They certainly did nothing to examine or impede Obama before any proof of his citizenship was produced. They simply took everyone's word that he was a citizen. No proof required.
It is further flawed logic. One can be naturalized without ever having gone through the naturalization process, such as when people immigrate to the United States, become citizens and their children are automatically naturalized.
Also, the 14th amendment is a mass naturalization process, as I mentioned before. No ceremony or process required for it to take effect.
Given the scrutiny of a presidential campaign, it's highly improbable that an illegal alien could advance without significant legal challenges and threat of deportation, thus, the only conclusion is that the candidate is a natural-born citizen.
Yeah, because we don't know, we must assume he's good.
Seems like this flawed logic thing is getting a bit of a workout with you, isn't it?
I would say the shoe must be on the other foot. It is contingent upon the candidate to *PROVE* he is, not on us to prove he isn't.
I will ignore the nuances in U.S. immigration law, which present additional considerations such as being born abroad to American parents or being born in a U.S. territory since those are not being argued as with John McCain.
Good choice, because cases like Rogers vs Bellei pretty much torpedo your argument about people not going through a naturalization process cannot be naturalized citizens.
Aldo Mario Bellei never went through a naturalization process, but he was, for a while, a citizen.
A lot of naturalizations occur without the usage of a process.