In reference to anchor babies: What about the term ‘domicile’ for the parents? What about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ What about Ark's reference to “including all children here born of resident aliens.” Do “illegal aliens” and their babies apply to this comment? Simply, no, because their neither legal and under the jurisdiction of the US, nor are they legally resident; not legally domiciled. I don't think those SCOTUS Jurists in the 19th C. could have possible conceived of the illegal alien problem we'd have in the 21st C.
In reference to BO, if he were born in HI, which he steadfastly refuses to prove to us, I will agree that he's a US citizen, however, he may have been a dual citizen of Great Britain/Kenya - which gets to the heart of the intent of the NBC status in the US Constitution.
You haven't shown us that the precedent on Article II, Section 1, has sufficiently handled that.
If BO was born in Kenya, to an 18 year old US citizen in 1961 - well he wasn't a US citizen under the prevailing law of the time. Then he's plum out.
Of course bammy himself has put us all in this position of guessing and informing ourselves on all matters of SCOTUS precedent (which in an of itself is not a bad thing) but for the sake of the POTUS is a NIGHTMARE of immense proportions. And the dim bulb party skips merrily along the way.
I will look for those other reference links for Jay's letter, etc.
What about it? Legally a domicile is a principle place of residence. It is determined by intent and it the place that a person has fixed as their ordinary dwelling without present intention to move. That doesn't change just because a person is here illegally. Many illegals stay here for years and years. But even if they intend to leave within a few months, that place where they reside in the interim is their legal domicile.
What about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’
Again, what about it? Any person in the U.S., be they citizen or foreigner, is subject to the laws and the jurisdiction while they are here. A visitor from Japan cannot rob a bank and expect not to be punished if caught. The only exception to this are foreign diplomats or heads of state, who are protected by diplomatic immunity, or foreign enemy nationals or prisoners held here against their will.
What about Ark's reference to “including all children here born of resident aliens.”
What of it? As natural born citizens they would, theoretically, be eligible to run for the presidency. If they met all the other qualifications.
Simply, no, because their neither legal and under the jurisdiction of the US, nor are they legally resident; not legally domiciled.
That's your opinion, and not what the law or the Constitution says.
In reference to BO, if he were born in HI, which he steadfastly refuses to prove to us, I will agree that he's a US citizen, however, he may have been a dual citizen of Great Britain/Kenya - which gets to the heart of the intent of the NBC status in the US Constitution. You haven't shown us that the precedent on Article II, Section 1, has sufficiently handled that.
And you haven't shown the precedent or the clause of the Constitution or the federal law that questions it.
If BO was born in Kenya, to an 18 year old US citizen in 1961 - well he wasn't a US citizen under the prevailing law of the time. Then he's plum out.
I would not disagree with that.