Section 1:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems unambiguous to me.
This is why ya’ll Ronettes wil never win-
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
oh that part doesn’t matter right?
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States”
They make a distinction between two types, Natural Born Citizen “OR” just Citizen. Yet you claim just Naturalized Citizen can’t. Confused?
And what is Natural Born, at the time?
Two Citizen Parents and born on US soil.
No question of loyalty.
As unambigous as the phony Dylan Mulvaney.
One problem - the word "President" is not in that paragraph.
The issue of citizenship by birth in the USA was settled in the 1800s.
The issue of Natural Born Citizenship - in regard to the President and VP - has never been litigated.
Right, it’s obvious - babies born of illegal aliens, foreign nationals, diplomats etc are not American citizens.
ARTICLE 2
Section ONE
Clause 5
addresses who is ELIGIBLE to be President.
A big fuss came up over McCain being born when his father was on military duty out of the country.
Those children ARE ELIGIBLE.
CITIZENS-—
NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS
citizen - yes
born a citizen - yes
natural-born citizen - subject to legal clarification
There was a 1730 British law that defined natural-born citizen. On July 3rd, 1776, the law was 100% clear in all 13 colonies. The US Constitution must be construed consistent with that 1730 law.
That would make him a citizen not a naturally born citizen.