Well actually now that I’ve schooled you about standing I have to educate you as to the final word on Natural Born Citizen. That would be the Supreme Court. They keep side stepping the issue but at some point they will be forced to weigh in and define it. The four previous times throughout history that the SCOTUS has touched on the issue they have acknowledged born in the US of two US parents.
In 2008 when John McCain’s eligibility was called into question the Senate voted a “resolution” stating that he was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President. A resolution of the Senate carries no weight of law whatsoever. The Senate realized that they didn’t have the power to pass legislation deeming McCain a natural born citizen so they passed a “resolution” and the DNC just went a long with it as they also had an ineligible candidate they wanted to run.
Are you absolutely sure you are an attorney? :-)
“four previous times throughout history that the SCOTUS has touched on the issue they have acknowledged born in the US of two US parents.”
The four previous times, the Supreme Court was deciding SOME OTHER QUESTION.
You have to first identify what the “question(s) presented” are that the court is deciding.
NOTHING ELSE has any meaning.
Only the question being decided counts.
The court case has no relevance to any other question.
However, the Supreme Court has never said anyone is NOT a natural born citizen because of XYZ.
This is the brain damage of the eligibility crusaders.
When the Supreme Court says that THIS particular person IS a natural born citizen...
... that does NOT mean that others are not.
A child born on US soil to US citizen parents clearly is a natural born citizen.
But nowhere have the courts ever said that someone is NOT a natural born citizen under other circumstances.
You simply refuse to engage in simple logic.
If my Nissan Altima is a car.
That does NOT mean your vehicle is NOT a car because it is not a Nissan Altima.
My Nissan Altima is a car.
Someone else’s Corvette is ALSO a car.
Let’s try it like this:
Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois and he is a natural born citizen.
So — according to your misreading of the Supreme Court cases —
someone born in Florida is NOT a natural born citizen because (you think) * O N L Y * people born in Illinois are natural born citizens.
That is your logic.
One case says ‘obviously this person is a natural born citizen.’
You erroneously think that that EXCLUDES other people under different circumstances.
So....
A child born on US soil is a natural born citizen.
AND ALSO a child born in Canada to a US parent is a natural born citizen.
They are * B O T H * natural born citizens, though born under different circumstances.
There is some of the brain damage:
NONE of the court precedents have EVER decided that someone is NOT a natural born citizen.
“In 2008 when John McCain’s eligibility was called into question the Senate voted a “resolution” stating that he was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President. A resolution of the Senate carries no weight of law whatsoever”
That is correct because it is AFTER the fact.
The Senate cannot pass a law 50 years after someone is born making them a natural born citizen.
Even if the Senate and the House passed a law and the President signed it, it could not work because it was passed AFTER McCain was born — like 50 years or more, maybe 70, after McCain was born.
So it was a stupid gesture.
But if Congress passed a law and the president signed it saying that children born in a foreign country are not natural born citizens, that would take effect as to any children born AFTER the law is signed into law by the president.