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.
The first election when he would be old enough to run will be 2056, so I’m not going to worry about it. The chances that I will be alive in 2056 are about one in a million. At any rate, if Archie is seen as a credible candidate in 2056 the state of the US will be far worse than any of us can imagine.
Thank you for making my point. When Congress is following it’s enumerated powers, it is NOT changing the Constitution. Congress is not attempting to remove the NBC requirement. THAT would require a change. Congress is following the Constitution when it expresses the will of Congress (via law) and exercising its power / authority to establish the rules of naturalization i.e. who is and who is not a natural born citizen.
This is a clear illustration of the ignorance that Meghan displays, honing a grievance based on her personal resentment that "Archie was treated differently than the other grandchildren", and assuming it was racial, when it was not at all. She just can't get over that her prince just isn't all that high in the line of succession. She actually thought she and Harry could compete with William and Kate for the top spot, based on celebrity and popularity in the media.
But weren't McCain's parents both Americans, and his father serving the U.S. military in Panama? As opposed to Obie, whose father was British Kenyan, and his place of birth in dispute.
Nope. Our law prohibits anyone with a royal title holding office in the U.S.
So you're saying that all children born to U.S. citizens serving the military abroad are not U.S. citizens? That's a lot of exclusion there.
McCain's birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. He was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone.
How do you figure that? They both have American mothers and British fathers, and Obama has lived here continuously for more than the required past 14 years.
US citizen, yes, natural born citizen eligible to be President, no.
They are not the same as made clear by the plain language of Art.II sec. 1
Unless there's a pile of money in it for his mother, she will ruin his chances with some pitiful story of how he victimized her, didn't call home, loved his father more than her, married someone she didn't like, etc. etc.
The Senate thought it was enough of a question to pass a resolution declaring McCain a natural born citizen because he had TWO citizen parents.
A Senate resolution cannot change the Constitution, it was worthless except as cover for Obama.
NEITHER candidate R or D was eligible in 2008, that’s why I voted for Bob Barr, he was the only eligible candidate on my ballot.
McCain never released his birth certificate, so you could not know who signed it.
Neither of VP Harris’s parents were US citizens.
Being raised by Meghan and Harry, Archie may be so messed up and out of touch with ordinary people that he would not be able to get many votes...and by then having a smidgen of African ancestry won’t be a big deal for a Presidential candidate.
No he is not. In 1787 women could not pass on citizenship, and the meaning of "natural born citizen" cannot be changed by subsequent congressional legislation giving women the right to pass on citizenship.
By the standards of 1787, he is not a US citizen, and that's even overlooking the "ambassador" type status of his father, which would also preclude him from having US citizenship.
I guess the idea of a natural born citizen having to go through a "naturalization" process is not enough cognitive dissonance for them to see what is wrong with the idea.
He is a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment which *GRANTS* him citizenship. Natural born citizens do not require the 14th amendment to make them citizens, so therefore a 14th amendment citizen cannot be a natural citizen.
If he is born on non-US soil to at least 1 US citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen.
Absolutely incorrect. The Supreme court itself said in Wong Kim Ark that if a child is born outside of the United States, the child can only become a citizen through a naturalization process instituted through congress.
Yes, until someone with the authority to tell him he's not eligible tells him he's not eligible.
He's no less eligible than Ted Cruz (born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father). Of course, Archie would have no renounce any royal titles. A minor formality.
The problem with Natural Born Citizenship as defined in the Constitution is that there seems to be no enforcement mechanism other than the will of the voters and if Archie decides to run for president and actually wins the election, who's going to stop him from assuming office?
Hillary.......its her turn.
How do you know Archie wouldn't grow into a stalwart conservative?
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.