Posted on 03/09/2021 7:25:08 AM PST by GQuagmire
Had an interesting discussion on a group chat with my family last night. My youngest daughter who is liberal and believes the mainstream media (she’ll come around eventually) was up in arms about the mean treatment of little Archie by the royal family. Skin color, lack of title, no security etc. I did a little research on his lack of title and I found out about the George V convention. Long story short there’s a internet chat, discussion about Archie becoming President one while his cousin will be king at the same time.
“he could be the President of the United States AND the King of England”
No, that’s not right, since “King of England” is a patent of nobility and that would disqualify him from the Presidency. He could be elected President when he had no title, but as soon as someone died and he became next in line for the throne, he would have to decide between accepting the title of “Crown Prince” and giving up the Presidency, or declining the princehood and staying President.
At least that is how it is supposed to work, but if Congress or the courts didn’t enforce it, I guess he could just flaunt the rules and do what he pleases.
Thank you
You're kidding, right? Do you really think our government follows the constitution?
People believe all that stuff about Archie? Meghan Markle has told so many lies her nose should be 6” long. Maybe it was before all her plastic surgery.
Meghan has had one person stick with her in her life. Her mother. However, she has alienated her mother’s family, her father’s family and now her husband’s family. Oh yes, her first two husbands have no kind words about her. Let’s see what Harry has to say in a couple of years.
Just like Obama?
“In truth he was born in Panama, not the Canal Zone and is not a natural born citizen.”
I know where he was born; I also know the circumstances under which he was born. Saying he is not a natural born citizen is ridiculous and defies common sense. It’s not like the family was on vacation for crying out loud. They were there under military orders. You would seriously look at someone and say, “even though you spent 30 years in the U.S. Navy and attained the rank of admiral, your son cannot be president because he was born in a foreign country while you were there on orders”?
Yes.
The military used to tell expectant mothers to return home to preserve natural born citizen status.
Assuming his mother doesn't take care of it first, he'd still be a member of the family but not eligible to claim any sort of nobility title or privilege that comes with that title with the US government. This was probably a bigger deal two hundred years ago when nobility was more than a historical curiosity and subject for gossip columns and gaudy tourist attractions. Used to be that offending foreign nobility was a big deal. They were big-time celebrities and mistreating one could be cause for wars. We have more cable channels now and more celebrities to ogle, and war isn't nearly as appealing unless there's a dollar to be made. For all intents and purposes, there is no real thing such as "international law" in that there is no superior legal system that can compel sovereign nations to obey each other's laws, so the UK (assuming it still has a royal family in thirty some years) could say he's in line to the throne and considered nobility, but so long as he didn't claim diplomatic immunity as a member of the royal family or something that would show him acting on it, it's just sort of a curiosity.
See Thomas v. Lynch, 5th Circuit, 2015 Case No. 14-60297
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60297-CV0.pdf
Jaramine Thomas, born of US Citizen father on US Military base. Removed from the US.
Can a person both be naturalized by act of Congress, and a NBC?
Rogers v. Bellei. Congressional act conferred citizenship at birth. SCOTUS considers this to be “naturalized by statute.” Absent a Congressional act, same person would not be a citizen at all.
With that, you shine a bright light on the contemporaneously recorded and discussed intention of the founders.
It is helpful to recall they had just fought a long, miserable and expensive war with England, costly in both blood and money.
Further, they clearly distinguished between citizen and natural born citizen in the language they used for the Constitution, the latter being used only in regard to the most senior office of the nation, its commander in chief of its military forces.
When they provided that congress would control citizenship, did they also intend that it could control the definition of NBC? It would seem even now ill-advised and highly unlikely.
If there is any perceived ambiguity or uncertainty as to the founder's intention, the issue ought to be resolved consistent with what they were clearly attempting to achieve and not that which might be more convenient today.
No longer matters. Kamala’s Parents are not born here either and she’s a step from being president.
We have not really been a Constitutional Republic since FDR slimed his way across the national stage.
This is why the Constitution specifies a different qualification for those seeking the presidency:
Article II; Section I, U.S.Constitution: (Paragraph 5) No person except a natural born Citizen,or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
All other Federal offices did not have this requirement..only the Presidency. That was because the Framers did not want someone whose parents had not been citizens leading this country in a time of war...... particularly against the Nation of whom the parents had been citizens. This would have been a major stumbling block so they wrote into the Constitution that phrase.... knowing that eventually there would be ample candidates whose parents had never been citizens of another Nation.
Many early seekers to the Presidency had at one earlier time been British Subjects, and this phrase allowed them to qualify early on. But eventually..... as time passed.... there were no more folks old enough to at one time have been British subjects.
The Presidency is the only Federal office with this requirement. You can be a Senator, a Representative, a Governor and even a Supreme Court Justice with Parents who had been (or are) foreign Nationals......but not the Presidency.
The Congress does not have the power to change Constitutional law by legislation.....only by convention.
Which means he’s not really a natural born citizen.
“Archie would have to go through a naturalization proceeding and need special permission from Congress.”
If he has to go through a naturalization proceeding or need special permission from Congress, then he isn’t a natural born citizen.
You are incorrect.
The Constitution specifically enumerates the exclusive and unfettered power upon Congress. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. The phrase "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ..." means that ALL rules. Those that need a process to be naturalized, as well as the procedure for such naturalization and those that a citizens at birth (natural born citizens). Thus by saying who is and is not a citizen at birth, Congress is FULFILLING their power under the Constitution.
Further the 14th amendment confers citizenship at birth (i.e without the requirement of naturalization) upon those born on US soil and subject to it's jurisdiction.
Why not? He is more “American” than Obama.
Article V, U.S. Constitution: The Congress,whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Enacting legislation that changes the Constitution is Unconstitutional. Proposing is not enacting!
Until he explicitly resigned his birthright US citizenship in 2016. Boris Johnson, the current UK Prime Minister, was eligible to run for US President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.