Posted on 10/20/2018 1:57:10 PM PDT by Jack Black
PDF We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” 1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at harvardlawreview.org ...
In this case the passport is indicative of a right to claim citizei. Born on US soil to two citizen parents, but with a right having absolutely nothing to do with US law or the Constitution to citizenship in another country. To make that person not a NBC would mean granting to other countries the right to determine eligibility to the US Presidency.
True, you can also be a naturalized citizen. But born a citizen and "natural born citizen" are the same, despite those who claim they "know" otherwise.
We agree on that. Arguments to the contrary are interesting but ultimately absurd.
Another birther thread. Oh goody.
Not having to go through naturalization does not prove anything. When Aliens become citizens, their small children do not have to go through a naturalization process. When their parents naturalize, the children acquire "derivative" naturalization. They are naturalized without having to go through a naturalization process.
A challenge to the candidacy for the Office of the President of the U.S. directed at Ted Cruz, Kamala Harris or any other person similarly situated will likely be rejected at the U. S. District Court level, affirmed by the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals and then later declined to be heard by the Supreme Court. The District Court will read the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, review the legislative and court history and will find that the candidate is eligible. They will not refer to your list of morons or the years of Freeper comments.
The only way that a higher court beyond the District level takes a look at this matter is would be in the unlikely event that the District level rules that the candidate is ineligible. The courts are going to let the voters sort this out.
This.
The evidence is strong that his mother as in Seattle shortly after he was born, but as his Aunt was living in Canada around the time of his birth, it is not unreasonable to believe his mother had been sent to live with her daddy's sister, and had him in Canada.
The original plan was to give him up for adoption, as explained in a letter from Obama Sr. that surfaced some years ago. Stanley Ann changed her mind.
Free Republic comments don't prove anything either. We have been having this argument since 2008 with no result. Only a court can interpret the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. and they are not going to touch this one.
What has "proving" got to do with anything? It doesn't matter what you can prove, people want to believe what they want to believe.
Only a court can interpret the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. and they are not going to touch this one.
Anyone can "interpret" the Constitution. Only what the Court says is going to get enforced. This does not make the Court correct, it just means they have power.
I believe in an objective "right", and it remains correct even if people in authority don't agree. An example is this theory of legalized abortion. The Court said in Roe v Wade that the penumbra of the 14th amendment makes abortion legal.
I say the court is full of sh*t. They are wrong, but because they have power, their claim is enforced. Still wrong, but enforced none the less.
| Person | Mother Citizen | Father Citizen | Born in USA | Citizen at Birth | Natural Born |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nikki Haley | No | No | Yes | Yes | |
| Tulsi Gabbard | Yes | No | No | Yes | |
| Barack Obama | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | |
| Ted Cruz | Yes | No | No | Yes | |
| John McCain | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
The are strictly travel identification, not citizenship documents.
In the USA citizenship is required to get an American passport, is it not?
A USA Passport is always accepted to prove citizenship, for places where such things are required, is it not?
This is the same in all nations I am aware of.
It sucks sometimes to have to follow the rule of law.
There you go again. Bringing sanity to a 10 year old argument.
It's about time, isn't it?
US Supreme Court, Wong Kim Ark v United States.
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
Women could not transfer citizenship until after the Cable Act of 1922 was passed. Prior to that, it was always the Husband's citizenship that mattered.
I do not believe the Rule of Law requires us to accept claims that are demonstrably untrue. I believe that accepting untruths as "Law" is not the Rule of Law, it is a Rule for Chaos.
The larger topic is "Natural Born Citizen", and I believe it is irrational to accept that Congress can change it's meaning through statute.
Congressional statutes should not have the ability to redefine constitutional requirements.
Thanks, but I read it 10 years ago. But, if you are going to go to the effort of using oversized fonts in bold, then at least you ought to quote the decision which was that Wong Kim Ark, having been born in the United States, was a U.S. Citizen.
Find a storm, face into the wind, shout until the cows go home. That is much more effective that what you are doing here.
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.