>But the Constitution overrules any treaty we sign.
And it gives the Congress power to make the rules (read laws) regarding naturalization. If congress ratifies some treaty which places some stricture on Nationalization then it *IS* the law.
You are quite wrong here, nowhere in the unamended Constitution does it define who is a Natural Born Citizen or who is not; the 14th Amendment says “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.”
NOTE THE ABSENCE OF THE ‘NATURAL BORN’ QUALIFIER, but also notice the AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF qualifier. The later means that a visiting Ambassador could give birth, with all the populace as witnesses, and that child would NOT be a Citizen according to the 14th Amendment. (”Diplomatic Immunity” means NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the states.)
So then, it simply is not enough for a child to be actually born in the states to be a Citizen thereof.
>That was the point of WKA - the treaty was invalid because WKA was born a citizen, per two clauses of the Constitution: the NBC clause, and the 14th Amendment.
Addressed above, there is NO “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution EXCEPT for the single mention in the qualification for President. Do a word search for the word [and all forms thereof] of “natural.”
>And no treaty could override that.
No treaty can override the National Constitution, true.
However, a treaty could be made that alters the rules of naturalization... i.e. say Israel and the US sign a treaty declaring that no individual who is from a nation which has open hostilities toward either State unless a thorough background check, independently by by both States, shall reveal no connections to terrorists.
>In like manner, if Obama was born in the USA, he cannot renounce his citizenship as a minor,
Granted, being a minor precludes THAT PERSON’S legal obligations.
>and he cannot lose it based on foreign laws or treaties. Just as WKA could not.
And yet someone can lose their right to Keep and Bear arms because of a restraining order, issued by some judge, with no trial? Even though the Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS IT? (Amd 5 & Amd 6.)
Methinks you have a problem with consistency.
“Methinks you have a problem with consistency.”
Methinks you have a problem with reading.
WKA addresses the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ for half of the decision. The court says the meaning is found in the very similar common law term, known to all the Founders, “natural born subject”. They then spend pages discussing NBS, pointing out that as long as the parents were present ‘in amity’, their child WAS a NBS even if they BOTH were aliens. And since that was true of a NBS, they reasoned that it was also the Founder’s intent when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
And if WKA was a natural born citizen, per the Constitution, then he had to be a citizen and no treaty could override it.
The 14th echoes the NBC clause, since it also requires the child to not be born of an Ambassador, or an invading army.
“And yet someone can lose their right to Keep and Bear arms because of a restraining order, issued by some judge, with no trial?”
Red herring. FWIW, I strongly believe the answer is no, but unlike many birthers, I’m willing to admit that the courts don’t agree with my interpretation. And while it pisses me off, I don’t go around filing lawsuits in an attempt to change it. If I can, I’ll vote for people who may someday bring it back to where it ought to be.
Placemark.