Could you see a more, or even a less, Constitutionally committed Court kicking an elected President or Vice President out over the citizenship of his parents?
OK you have got me there--that is sloppy writing on my part.
I didn't mean birthplace where you have it underlined; I meant citizenship.
And the answer is still "no"--if the person elected was born in the United States. And of course "yes" if he was born outside the territory of the several states whatever the citizenship of his parents.
As to the guy in the White House, Barry, his issue is a place of birth problem only whoever his parents were. That is your opinion, correct?
Yes. But with a couple of narrow exceptions, you won't find knowledgeable opinion's to the contrary. The lawyers who have been involved on our side really aren't up to the level of sophistication required here.
The one exception to that is the last ten pages of the opinion for the Congressional Research Service.
He says the answer is the same even for a person born outside the US.
The Liberals would prefer that answer--they would like to strike the Natural Born clause from the Constitution. In my opinion, the Liberal bar and academics got so locked in on the disqualifying element of the place of birth issue with Romney Sr. and Goldwater that I think they would have trouble extricating themselves from that answer--if you get someone born outside the US, absent a strong Liberal reconstruction of the Court that can afford not to be concerned about the history of this language, my view is that the Court would come down on a person born outside the US as not eligible.
...the kid was born in the US but because they were sojourners or other happenstance presence persons, the kid was subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of the place of the parents citizenship.
Isn't that the very case with Sr. who was only here on a student visa?
Good argument but I think the Court would see even the student who was here only for one term as distinguishable. I think the no jurisdiction because of limited contact concept is like the airplane flying across the country that stops in Omaha for fuel where the kid is born. Doesn't take much in the way of contact to attach sovereignty.
Senior was here for at least five years. If his kid was in fact born here, he is natural born.
And since his father was an "alien" (the legal definition) doesn't the citizenship follow the father?
No. That is only the subject of citizenship law of the father's jurisdiction. He might be a citizen somewhere else also. That's how you get dual citizenship. But in the US, born here is a super citizenship right under the 14th Amendment.
The fact that you refer to "knowledgeable opinion" to the contrary only reinforces that this is lost history. But lost or not, it is what the Framers intended if Paine is to be believed.
-PJ
This is a false assumption. Senior was never admitted a resident alien. Even if one were to accept that the WKA decision redefined NBC (which it did NOT do), the court still required the parents to be resident aliens with permanent residence and domicil in order to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment:
the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens ...I hope you start to see a pattern and get the point. Senior never had a permanent residence and domicil, and upon marriage, neither did his wife. Senior was sent home when his last extension request was denied. Had Obama's mama not divored his father, they would have been sent to Kenya along with Senior. Because of this, Obama could not have been a citizen under the 14th amendment and he certainly was not a natural-born citizen.
they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence ....
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States ...
civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil
the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship ...