But an embassy is considered legally equivalent to American soil, no?
What if Jefferson’s wife were to have been an American citizen? Would it matter where their child was born?
What about a US army base?
What about military members in Germany with their American born spouses also in Germany who give birth to a child inside a US army hospital based in Germany?
By the way, several prominent Americans who have either been President or ran for President would not fit your view, why is that?
Here are a few;
President Chester Arthur had an Irish father who was not a US Citizen until his son was 14 years old.
Senator Barry Goldwater ran for President yet he was not born in a US State. He was born in a territory subject to US jurisdiction.
Senator and Governor Lowell P. Weicker ran for President in 1980 and was earlier considered a vice-presidential nominee in 1976. He was born in Paris, France, to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an American and his mother was born in India, the daughter of a British general.
John McCain was born in a territory subject to US jurisdiction.
There are others that appeared borderline eligible and who were supported by court rulings as eligible.
As for Ameriasian children, weren’t many of them born out of wedlock? So there was no clear record of their birth to members of the US military? I remember reading many American GI veterans in Vietnam were unaware they were fathers of children born to women they had relationships with.
John McCain was not eligible, he born in Colon.
Military bases and embassies are considered US territory.
Aside from Arthur only BHO has been eligible to hold the office who held the office. I don't give a hoot about also rans.
It's pretty simple to understand but most want to complicate it. "What if someone was born on a plane as it was landing on aircraft carrier?"or whatever.
Adding to Greg’s post.
The vast majority of Amerasians were born out of wedlock, but they do keep birth records in those countries and their genetics can be proven with testing.
The point is that members of both houses of Congress have sought numerous times -like nearly two dozen- to amend the constitutional requirements for the presidency since the mid 1970’s. Both parties have failed to change the requirements as their bills have not passed. While most have sought to shorten the residency requirement, some have focused on “allowing candidates who were born abroad, but lived her for at least 20-25 years.”
Everyone used to know perfectly well what NBC meant and they did not have the audacity to question the meaning. Instead they attempted legally to change the criteria, but were unsuccessful.
There are 330 million Americans and certainly we should be able to nominate just ONE person born here to Americans to run for president. It can’t be that hard to do unless globalists are intentionally attempting to subvert the authority of the constitution and the fabric of America.
And that IS exactly what they are trying to do: provide a growing list of non-NBC’s.
It’s globalism usurping Americanism.
“There are others that appeared borderline eligible and who were supported by court rulings as eligible.
“As for Ameriasian children, weren’t many of them born out of wedlock? So there was no clear record of their birth to members of the US military? I remember reading many American GI veterans in Vietnam were unaware they were fathers of children born to women they had relationships with.”
Correct. Back in 2012 I put up a vanity post when my brain was a bit clearer (I have ME/CFS) attempting to show that Barry’s minions in the State Dept. were colluding with a law firm in CA and the 9th Circuit in a decision called Marguet-Pillado to retroactively make him eligible even if he was born in Kenya by relying on item number 2 of the decision, NOT number 1!
The M-P test (2) says all you have to do is be “born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements” and you are NBC! So the AmerAsians and also Barry, if born in Kenya to an unmarried SADO in Kenya, would be NBC.
“Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya (vanity)”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2857598/posts?q=1&;page=141
In support of the opinion in US v Marguet-Pillado, 9th Cir. 2011, Judge Gwin, writing for the majority in his “III Analysis” dicta, states: “No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was ‘an accurate statement of the law,’ in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.” On March 1, Sheriff Arpaio’s Posse re-opened the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya by announcing that it had found probable cause to believe that Obama’s long form birth certificate was forged, newspaper birth announcements were unreliable, and that there was now no proof that Obama was born in the USA. A week earlier, with full knowledge of what the Arpaio Posse’s findings would be, “constitutional scholar” Obama’s legal team suddenly started citing the Marguet-Pillado case in multiple PA and GA ballot eligibility state appeals. The following language is included by Obama’s lawyers in the PA and GA MTD filings: “President Obama was a United States citizen from the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship from birth, all Constitutional qualifications have been met. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App., 2009); see,United States v. Marguet-Pillado , 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9thCir., 2011). There is no basis to question the President’s citizenship or qualifications to hold office.” www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/.../10-50041.pdf