Posted on 08/16/2020 12:36:09 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Of course it is. And I'll take it even more out of context:
>>...according to the court...<<
That means every member of the court believed that:
>> "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." << It was a unanimous decision.
It's saying there's group A that everyone agrees is a natural born citizen. It goes on to say there's group B where some doubt has been expressed
Yes, in other words...."the court" endorses "group A"....Unanimously!
(The court ain't buying "group B")
That case does not say a natural born citizen requires citizen parents. It doesn't define natural born citizen at all.
Of course it does:
>> "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens
Wong Kim Ark does:
hmmmmmm....
every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject
(except this ain't England, and we ain't "subjects")
Another “dead letter”.
By requiring a natural born citizen they were disqualifying anyone that immigrated to the country and gained citizenship after birth. The fear was that a European prince could come to America, get elected President, and make himself a king.
Naturalized citizens are disqualified from being President. That was the intent and effect of "natural born citizen".
Uh no. That's silly.
"(The court ain't buying "group B")"
Wrong. The court is not deciding group B.
"Of course it does:"
Nope. It only declared that group A, which nobody disagrees about, were clearly natural born citizens. It did not restrict the definition to that group.
"(except this ain't England, and we ain't "subjects")"
Which is why they changed "subject" to "citizen". duh.
But they otherwise kept the phrase because it carried the meaning they intended. As Wong Kim Ark explains in detail.
Good reply.
Now, analyze this: “By requiring a natural born citizen they were disqualifying anyone that immigrated to the country and gained citizenship after birth. “
Kamala Harris’s parents were both here on student VISAs when she was born. Student VISAs are given to FOREIGN students wishing to study here, and stay temporarily.
Do you think the Founders would have been OK with that?
every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject
Which means literally that they wished the US to be forever governed by enemy agents.
Those evil bastards!
Heh. Misleading headline (a requirement for headlines).
WH and campaign said they weren’t going to make it an issue. They didn’t provide an opinion one way or the other. Trump said Biden should vet his candidates, presumably to minimize “issues.”
There’s a residency “requirement” too, probably satisfied by keeping a PO box.
Any citizen can poursue it, sure, but any court can (and does) deny standing.
“White House, Trump campaign: Kamala Harris is eligible to serve as VP”
Democrats, Media: Kamala Harris is not eligible to serve as VP
Her parents aren't running for Vice President. They wouldn't be able to.
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.