The decision argued at great length that WKA met the qualification for both NBC & 14th Amendment. In fact, the court said that the NBC clause and the 14th were using the exact same criteria for citizenship.----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, no. Even to this day, the U.S. Government does NOT necessarily consider a statutory citizen at birth to be a "natural born citizen" for Constitutional purposes.
"In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
I apologize for butting in here because Mr. Rogers is perfectly capable of explaining this himself, but I do want to make a point.
Rides3: I believe Mr. Rogers holds that SCOTUS in US v. WKA declared WKA not to be a statutory citizen but a natural born citizen. I don’t know where you get statutory citizen from but you should get rid of that idea.
It is a fact that Natural Born Citizens are eligible to run for the office of the President of the United States. You certainly cannot deny that.
That was established in the Constitution and in US vs WKA.
I think you are concerned that SCOTUS didn’t actually come out and say specifically that Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen. They did’t specifically say, “Ark is NBC.”
It is not necessary to specifically say “Wonk Kim Ark is a natural born citizen”. Logic is sufficient. When the Supreme Court said that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born–except for certain exceptions (foreign diplomat, etc); and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA and none of the exceptions apply to him, then Wong Kim Ark fits into the category of Natural Born Citizen.
I can say Jimmy has blue eyes. I can further say that you need blue eyes to become president. I never said Jimmy is eligible to become president in actual words but logically Jimmy CAN be president because he has blue eye. LOGIC!
That is why all authorities accept US v WKA’s decision as precedent to dispel the two citizen parent crap that floats around clogging up the court system resulting in being tossed out. Sound logical to you?
“In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”
True. The State Department and law may go beyond what has been ruled on to date.
When BY wrote: “The Supreme Court has never clarified the issue, but there is a law, 8 U.S. Code 1401, that spells out in detail who is a citizen...And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.”, he went well beyond what the court ruled in WKA.
For example, the WKA ruling DID make a point that WKA’s parents were “domiciled” in the US - something that I don’t think Obama Sr was. On that basis, I think a challenge could be mounted, although I don’t think at this point a ruling would go along, since it would remove a sitting President from office.
And WKA did not address those born overseas to two citizen parents, let alone to those born of ONE citizen parent overseas. In those areas, the public law goes beyond anything the US Supreme Court has ruled on.