And just how would you propose enforcing your idea that Congress does not have the authority by statute to specify how long a citizen parent needs to have resided in the U.S. and how old they needed to be, to legally produce an NBC child that was born beyond our border?
Your thoughts about it are interesting to contemplate but are not in and of themselves either proven to be Constitutionally or statutorally legal.
Such matters would somehow have to be adjudicated and agreed upon to be followed by all relevant parties to the NBC issue, and they are not.
Sigh.
I wonder when, if ever, people are going to realize that their thoughts, reasonings, beliefs etc are NOT settled law.
So when they think they have “nailed” others who disagree with them on something, and get combative, superior, demanding, insulting and just plain HUFFY about the differences, that they are blowing smoke in the wind.
There is no there, there.
And when they do this on the internet, and on this website here, somehow they believe they have established something authoritative, when they have not because that is not how something authoritative is established.
I appreciate those who believe as CRUZ does about legal authority for NBC. They try to cite statutes, because the Constitution by itself does not give definition to NBC. But when they are attacked by others as being “unConstitutional”, dear Lord, give them strength to persist, because not the Constitution by itself nor the Courts have made a candidate ineligible who has been deemed eligible by our system, otherwise, on the NBC definition grounds.
And I can’t remember which Article of the Constitution does this, but the Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define citizenship by statute.
It has been posted here several times, though.
So now you’re trying to say that the statutes go too far in setting age and residency requirements for a one parent who can produce an NBC child born outside the U.S. and that makes the statutes unConstitutional.
The point is, you have no way to establish that.
None. It hasn’t been adjudicated and agreed to by relevant parties to the matter.
Therefore, it remains merely something you came up with and wrote on this internet website.
You said quite a bit about something you clearly haven't researched.
buridan's exact question was presented to SCOTUS in 1971 in Rogers v. Bellei. It is settled law. SCOTUS ruled that it is absolutely within Congress's power to set residency requirements for citizens born overseas. The dissenting opinion agreed with buridan that Congress should not have such power because it doesn't have such powers over 14th Amendment citizens.
In any case, the residency requirements have been repealed.
“I wonder when, if ever, people are going to realize that their thoughts, reasonings, beliefs etc are NOT settled law.”
“So when they think they have “nailed” others who disagree with them on something, and get combative, superior, demanding, insulting and just plain HUFFY about the differences, that they are blowing smoke in the wind.”
“. . . I can’t remember which Article of the Constitution does this, but the Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define citizenship by statute.”
I hope these unfriendly comments were not directed at me. I very tentatively questioned some of CATO’s reasoning. I made no dogmatic statements whatsoever. It is doubtful that Congress can “define” natural born citizenship. It can establish a “uniform rule of naturalization” (Art. II, Sect. 8), but naturalization pertains to those not citizens at birth. An originalist approach to the Constitution would look for the meaning of “natural born citizen” in legal materials known to the framers and ratifiers.