Good point.
This issue is discussed frequently here on Free Republic.
Some Freepers say the courts need to address this with a definitive ruling.
I suspect that if the courts ever did issue a ruling, the ruling would say that Barack and Kamala were eligible. And the key issue would be, that they didn’t have to go through the naturalization process. They were American citizens by birth, regardless of the immigration status of parents.
And regarding Obama, can you imagine the legal ramifications of nullifying the entire Obama administration after the fact? Agreed, no courts is going to rule that way.
The issue needs to be brought before not just the SCOTUS but the Congress.
That it would invalidate an entire administration or disqualify a leading candidate is irrelevant. They convict people on ludicrous technicalities and imprison them, we can be technical about who gets to control the nuclear stockpile.
There are plenty of rocks to throw at the Katyal-Clements BS, which is simply self serving because Katyal is Indian and wanted to open the door for someone like...Kamala Harris!
The fact that she is considered a citizen rests on ONE SCOTUS decision from 1898 and it’s been controversial ever since.
The limitation in the Constitution is there specifically to keep someone like Barry Soetoro and Kamala Harris out of the office. Loyalty to the nation - a group of people - and the Constitution is the obvious criteria: we don’t want to be ruled by foreigners, just because they assert “I yam an Amer-eeican”.
Harris has like 4 blood relatives in this country and not one family member who ever served in the US military in any capacity, nor any family history of the settlement and maintenance of the country. With well over 200-250 million people who DO have that background, why do we need her? Why change the rules for one overly ambitious nobody from somewhere else?
People are mistaken in their thinking that you must go through a naturalization process to be naturalized.
This is not correct. Congress has created statutes which naturalize people at birth, and do not require a naturalization process. The "Citizenship act of 1952" is an example of people being naturalized at birth, and none of them have to go through a naturalization process, but many of them have to meet certain requirements to retain their citizenship.
Mario Aldo Bellei is an example of a "citizen" who was naturalized at birth, (He was born to an American mother) but who lost his citizenship for failing to meet the requirements set by Congress in order to keep his citizenship.) (Rogers v Bellei)
Natural born citizens can't lose their citizenship for failing to do something. Citizens created by a naturalization statute, can.
I think if Kamala had remained outside the country for the first 21 years of her life, she would have lost her citizenship. This clearly shows the difference between a natural citizen, and a "naturalized" citizen.