If your wanting to quote dicta, fine...I'll match your state of New York case with multiple SCOTUS cases that align with the born on soverign territory to two parents who owe no alligience to another definition.
No, he’s not wrong. Although an argument can be made (based on Vattel and several other sources) that “natural born citizen” requires that both parents be citizens, the more commonly accepted view is (and has been for quite some time) that children born in the U.S. (except those born to ambassadors and diplomats, who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States) are “natural born citizens.” See, e.g., Lynch v. Clarke (1844); Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President Of The United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD L. Rev. 1,1 (1968).
I’m with you guys.
I don’t know where this draconian definition of NBC came from.
In MY 8th grade class were were taught if you were born here, you were thus natural born and eligible for the Presidency.
It has simply blown my mind that so many people have been yelling this from the rooftops when not a single person in the whole wide world didn’t know that Obama senior was not a citizen.
Were they thinking that maybe that was news to the SCOTUS and it just needed to be pointed out?
Sorry folks....I haven’t found a single legal mind that agrees with you.
Natural law doesn’t need no stinking legal statute. A child born in a nation of citizen parents is a natural born citizen, period. There is no question about citizenship, not need for a legal definition and thus no legal statute.
So, natural born citizen is an eligibility requirement to be President per Article II of the U.S. Constitution. One must only meet the ‘citizen’ criteria to be a Representative of the House, or a Senator, but to be President you shall be a natural born citizen.
Vattel’s book was present at the writing of the Constitution, we know that from witnesses at the event, and the book is even mentioned in Article I!
Legal statutes exist concerning other births and who is a citizen: foreign national parents, in the U.S. legally, with a child born in the U.S. = native born citizenship; U.S. parents of a child born overseas = derived citizenship; A foreign national who becomes a U.S. citizen = naturalized citizenship.
Citizenship (the definitions of citizenship per our government) can be found at the following link:
As to Lynch V. Clark, you can shove it up the proverbial dark spot! The Socialists have been trying to undermine our Constitution for decades. With Obama, they’ve succeeded - for now.
If your wanting to quote dicta, fine...I'll match your state of New York case with multiple SCOTUS cases that align with the born on soverign territory to two parents who owe no alligience to another definition.
You would be more persuasive if you correctly and completely identified Lynch v. Clarke (1844) as a New York State jurisdiction case and not a federal jurisdiction case, and that the issue before the courts was whether or not Julia Lynch was a citizen, not whether or not she was a natural born citizen, and hence Lynch v. Clarke regarding NBC is only dicta, not directly germane to the precise issue before the court.
That would be a forthright thing to do the next time you post your argument. If you want to be taken seriously, you want to be forthright.
People who are not forthright in their arguments are commonly considered trolls.