I can’t get the email link to work for me. Perhaps one of you can get through to this numb skull.
I just heard that as well. His e-mail is: mdavis@airmail.net.
Isn’t he the guy who co-hosted for Rush a few months back and had everyone turning off the radio in anger and disgust?
Actually, I think that the right answer depends upon the year that you are talking about. The laws were changed (within BHO’s lifetime).
In Mrs. Avandono’s 5th grade Civics course we were taught that one needed 2 U.S. citizen parents to qualify for President.
Now, whether that was her opinion or was in the material, I can’t say. But I do remember that to this day, as stated in my tagline.
I said yesterday that this was going to be their new talking point. You can plan on hearing this all over now.
The guy is king of the idiots.
I made this comment on another thread - thought you would appreciate it;)
“The irony of this debacle must surely be:
All descendants of slaves (both parents) are eligible for election to POTUS, while children of European ancestry are only eligible if one or both parents are native born and/or naturalized at the time of birth on US soil.
Sad that the first ‘black’ POTUS was not such a man.”
sod
Can’t listen to him. He’s so full of himself.
I don’t understand how Rush has him on
The fact is, he may be right. The term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the constitution so it has been up to definition by the courts ever since. Under current law, if a child is born abroad or domestically to at least one American parent, and the parents are legally married, and if the child is declared at birth to be an American citizen, and have not declared allegiance to any foreign power, that child is a natural born citizen.
In situations where only one parent is a United States citizen, he or she must have lived in the United States for at least five years at some point before the child’s birth as a full American citizen, and at least two of these five years must have occurred after the parent’s 14th birthday. In the case of a child born to an American mother, the child is usually considered a natural born citizen, whether or not the mother is married. However, if an American father is involved in a relationship with a foreign woman and the couple is not married, the father may need to fight for the child’s right to citizenship.
I know these things because 2 of my 4 children were born in Japan to me and a Japanese mother. We registered their birth as American citizens immediately and they received U.S. passports. We specifically asked the legal counsel of the US embassy in Tokyo and he informed us of the pertinent laws and precedent.
I would at least give this radio host (Mark Davis) credit for commenting on the definition of NBC even if he is wrong. I have not heard Rush, Hannity or Levin comment at all on the definition of NBC as if they are afraid to even think about it. Steve Mulzberg is good on the birth certificate issue but I have not heard him comment on the definition of NBC either. The ignorance of conservative talking heads becomes very evident by their stance on this issue.
“Natural born” citizenship is not explicitly defined in the Constitution or law. Virtually everyone born in the US, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, at least since the 14th Amendment, is considered to have been born a US citizen.
Some people claim that some of these citizens are something less than “natural born” citizens, depending on their parents’ citizenship, but there is nothing in the law to support such claims.
In fact, the Wong Kim Ark Court treated the parents practically as de facto American citizens, because of their extensive and practically exclusive ties to the U.S. Would a Court find that the child of a person with NO, or only passing/deliberately temporary ties to the U.S., was likewise a natural-born citizen, as opposed to a citizen at birth by operation of law? (The latter being a legal grant that indisputably the Sovereign could choose to withhold).
This discussion is taking place in a legal and constitutional vaccum. Because it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and the fat lady hasn't sung yet --- because, with the Court's reluctance to involve itself in politics, no one yet has has standing to raise the issue for a decision on the merits, ON THESE PARTICULAR FACTS.
Who is in charge of verifying that a candidate is eligible? What standard do they use? How can their decision be challenged and/or remedied?
Unless Congress takes action on these matters, the only thing that will get the people a final answer is for a state to impose an eligibility law and then go through the legal challenges to it.
This whole debate wouldn't be happening if there were a settled legal standard and a legal procedure for verifying eligibility, challenging eligibility decisions and remedying eligibility violations.
There is absolutely no reason for the country to be dragged through this again in the future --- and it will be if the above points are not addressed.
The only way to get these points addressed is for a state to pass an eligibility law, define natural-born citizen some way, and then see what happens when it is challenged in court.
Then we might get a SCOTUS ruling on what NBC actually means and how Congress might go about enforcing eligibility requirements.
When he subs for Rush I immediately turn the channel. he is horrible.
I'm open to the possibility. What is Davis' legal justification for this conclusion?
Seems to me that it's true, by operation of statute, that only one parent must be a U.S. citizen for a child to be, by operation of law, as U.S. citizen at birth.
But that citizenship by operation of law, even though it's granted at birth, may not be the same as citizenship one is BORN with (i.e., naturally) due to the citizenship of one's father and/or both parents.
Point is that a lot of monkeys are flying on this issue and that's because the SCOTUS has never plainly addressed who is and is not a person who is a citizen naturally (through natural law) and who is a citizen by grant of the Sovereign (through common or enacted law).
Here's a hypothetical: A child's mother is British. He was born here. Had no law been on the books making him a U.S. citizen because he was born here, he would have been a British citizen --- the citizenship he received NATURALLY from his mother.
By operation of law, based on his birthplace, he's certainly an American citizen. But was he BORN a U.S. citizen? Arguably not. The U.S. gave him that status at birth, but the U.S. could have just as easily not made that its law. Or it could have said he would be granted citizenship if he lived in the U.S. for five years or whatever. And had he declined U.S. citizenship, or had the law changed so that babies born here were not automatically American citizens, he would have still been a British citizen, because he was BORN a British citizen.
Let's say this hypothetical is correct. If a person has to have a law in effect to make him a U.S. citizen, even if that citizenship is granted AT birth, is the person BORN with that citizenship?
Wouldn't one think that "natural born citizenship" is the citizenship one is BORN with, that requires no law to make it go into effect?
If the U.S. passed a law that said only children born in the U.S. of American citizens were deemed U.S. citizens at birth, what citizenship would the child of two Mexicans have, even if that child was born in Texas?
That child would be a citizen of Mexico. Because that was the citizensip he was naturally born with.
at least it’s one (parental) step closer than what the left has been claiming, which seems to be that only his (alleged) birth in HI is what qualifies him as NBC.