Is Prince Harry’s son Archie eligible to be US president? (Shameless vanity)

3/9/21 | GQuagmire

[DiogenesLamp]

Military bases in foreign countries are not considered american soil.

Our understanding of the meaning of "natural born citizen" derives from only two possible sources.

It either emerges from English Common Law, (Jus Soli) or it descends from Emmerich Vattel's "Law of Nations." (Jus Sanguinus)

In English Law, a statute was enacted granting Subject status to the children of English fathers born abroad.

Vattel's "Droit des Gens" explicitly states that the children of soldiers are always citizens regardless of where they are born.

So whether we go with English Law, or Vattel, the result is the same. Children born to soldiers in foreign lands are always subjects or citizens, as the case may be.

Thomas v. Lynch - 5th Circuit - August 7, 2015 - 14-60297

And I have very little faith in Supreme court decisions ever being correct, and the closer they are to the present time, the greater likelihood that they are in error.

[DiogenesLamp]

...a minimum age to become President is defined as 35 and there is no legal disagreement over what "age 35" means.

Yes, a "minimum age" to be President is 35, but your response didn't make it clear that you were speaking of the minimum age for the Presidency. Given the nature of the sort of citizenship that children born abroad have, it was natural to believe you were referring to the minimum age at which he would have to "elect" which citizenship he was going to retain.

Our naturalization laws require the child to choose at a certain minimum age, and i've now forgotten if it is 18 or 21, but I know there is an age at which the child must choose his citizenship.

If we go along with the fiction that a child which is required by law to "choose" which citizenship he wants is somehow a "natural born citizen", then sure, when he turns 35, he can be elected President if he chooses to retain American citizenship.

But the idea is silly and nonsensical in terms of what the founders intended to happen.

[suthener]

“He was born on the Naval base hospital, and i’m sick of pointing out the proof of this. Every time this topic comes up there are people out there repeating that crap about him being born in Colon. He was not. He was born on the American Naval base hospital, and there is proof of it out there. I used to post a copy of the hospital log records, but I no longer remember where to find that link now.
McCain was an @$$hole, but he was absolutely without question an American citizen born on American territory to two American citizens.”

Thanks. I agree with your assessment of Mccain.

[RC one]

We are not England. We fought a revolution to get away from the Monarchy. We drive on the right side of the road because they drive on the left side of the road in England and our forefathers didn't want to be anything like England and if the King of England could have been voted out of power, I guarantee he would have adopted Vattel's definition of a NBC.

[DiogenesLamp]

Naturalization laws do.

Yes. They do. Yes, naturalization laws do indeed apply here. :)

Later than that. The current law is 8 U.S. Code § 1401 which identifies people who don't need to be naturalized to be citizens, AKA natural-born citizens.

A naturalization law that "identifies" people who don't need naturalization.

:)

Archie hasn't had to elect anything.

He's too young. American law doesn't require a child to choose his citizenship till he reaches the age of maturity.

[Lurkinanloomin]

McCain refused to release his original birth certificate.

US citizen, yes, natural born citizen, no.

If it was proven, why would the US Senate feel the need for the fig leaf resolution?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well you are entitled to ignore the Constitution and the laws of Congress.

Do not put forth a false premise on which to make your claims. I am not ignoring the Constitution, and the laws of congress are irrelevant to the meaning of "natural born citizen."

Congress cannot rewrite the meaning of terms used in the US Constitution by passing legislation. Only an Amendment can redefine a term used in the Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's what most people believe, and they are closed minded so discussion on the point is waste.

A lot of people close their minds to ideas which challenge what they have always believed, or what they wish to believe.

You are absolutely right about this.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The founders did not define any of the plain language of the Constitution, except treason.
Do you not know what “shall not be infringed” means because they did not attach a glossary?
Natural born citizen was a commonly understood phrase until concerted efforts to undermine it in the second half of the 20th century.

[Lurkinanloomin]

He’s also an Indonesian citizen.

[suthener]

You’re not citing law and neither am I. At this point, for both of us, it’s a matter of opinion. I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine. So...nice conversation, have a good night.

[Cboldt]

-- I'm always interested in what birthers believe. --

I believe that. You are argumentative too, but my opinion your understanding is superficial and your arguments are sophistry.

Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM

[DiogenesLamp]

Under the laws of the time, no. Under current law he's a natural born citizen.

What other constitutional terms can be redefined by congress passing laws? This method is sooo much easier than passing amendments.

Sorry to disappoint.

You aren't disappointing. I almost fell out of my chair when you said "naturalization laws" that "identify" people who don't need naturalization.

Funniest thing i've seen all day.

[DoodleDawg]

Yes. They do. Yes, naturalization laws do indeed apply here. :)

I can see where that would confuse you. The law I'm referring to is the one I referenced earlier - 8 U.S. Code § 1401. While that falls under the broad naturalization law umbrella of 8 U.S. Code Part I, the purpose of that particular section is to identify those who acquire their citizenship at birth and don't need to be naturalized, AKA natural-born citizens.

A naturalization law that "identifies" people who don't need naturalization.

Lightbulb go on?

He's too young. American law doesn't require a child to choose his citizenship till he reaches the age of maturity.

More accurately he's already a citizen. When he reaches adulthood he can decide whether to give it up.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes. Honest enough?

Astonishing to get a straight answer.

...Roger Taney and his Scott v. Sanford decision. The 14th Amendment overruled that.

Yes it did, but it did not magically transform former slaves into "natural born citizens." It made them into naturalized citizens, and thereafter they could begat "natural born citizens", but the 14th amendment is still a naturalization statute.

And Taney was absolutely wrong about the citizen aspect in his decision. Citizens of a state became American citizens upon the creation of the Union, and many states had black citizens at the time.

[DoodleDawg]

Natural born citizen was a commonly understood phrase until concerted efforts to undermine it in the second half of the 20th century.

Apparently not since a lot of effort went into writing laws that defined who was natural-born and who wasn't, starting in 1787 I believe.

[DoodleDawg]

What other constitutional terms can be redefined by congress passing laws? This method is sooo much easier than passing amendments.

Point out to me where the Constitution defined natural-born citizen.

You aren't disappointing. I almost fell out of my chair when you said "naturalization laws" that "identify" people who don't need naturalization.

Easily amused as always.

[DiogenesLamp]

He’s also an Indonesian citizen.

Yes he was, but it would have no effect on his American citizenship, if he actually had American citizenship.

Foreign citizenship law does not override American citizenship law.

[DoodleDawg]

Yes it did, but it did not magically transform former slaves into "natural born citizens."

Sure it did, or did you miss the "born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction part"?

It made them into naturalized citizens, and thereafter they could begat "natural born

Oh barf.

[DiogenesLamp]

the purpose of that particular section is to identify those who acquire their citizenship at birth and don't need to be naturalized, AKA natural-born citizens.

A naturalization law that prevents naturalization. Got it. :)

Let me toss this out here just to see what you think of it.

The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,—birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

US Supreme Court, United States v Wong Kim Ark. Clause 113.