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 ...
.
Congress does not have the power to make anyone a “natural born citizen.”
No court is ever going to rule that someone who was born a citizen is not a “natural born citizen”. The only real question about Obama was whether he was born outside of the USA, because the law the time required the citizen parent to have lived in the USA for five years after reaching the age of 18, which his mother had not done. That law was passed to prevent the children of young soldiers from claiming citizenship and has since been changed. But the idea that SCOTUS will rule there is a third kind of citizen who is born a citizen but not a NBC is delusional.
In another two decades “natural born” will mean born anything other than “white”, and born only to parents for whom English was a second language. They’ve already muddied the waters by retreating from the Constitution which clearly states both parents of a candidate for the presidency are required to be naturalized American citizens, meaning both parents were legally born on American soil. It doesn’t state any restrictions on where the eligible parents were currently residing when the candidate was born. That’s a false flag. The Constitution doesn’t acknowledge “anchor babies”, or legal immigrants, so the left now is trying to ram “court decisions” and “precedent” down everyone’s throat. Which is all leftist codswallop designed to mislead generations of Americans who were dis-educated in government schools for decades beginning in the 60’s and who have no idea that the qualifications for candidate for the presidency are vastly different than the qualifications for American citizenship. Americans on the street are abysmally ignorant on this issue. That’s why articles like this are floated by the left and taken seriously. Deliberate knowledge gap.
Yeah, it never stopped the 0panzy.
0panzy set the bar now. All you need is a forged BC from HI
“”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.””
I don’t believe that was the argument where obozo was concerned but was added just in case the readers/voters couldn’t think for themselves.
Great post.
I’m no wiz at how federal court cases to make “precedent” are handled.
I assume, though, that they can be sent up the ladder to the SCOTUS?
Which is already and will soon be Absolutely in conservative hands.
Will that slow the tide?
How do we know that this statement is correct? Is it in the Constitution? (No). Could this language be in a statute or in naturalization regulations? I don't know, but I haven't seen it. I have seen it repeatedly on Free Republic, but never with a source.
The 14th ammendment.
If the parents entered legally (”under the authority”) then the child is born a citizen.
See the above. The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th was crystal clear. Was not to include foreigners or aliens.
So again, where’s the law that congress has passed making children born to foreign nationals U.S. citizens at birth?
.
Don’t hold your breath!
(remember the Obamacare ‘mandate !’
I don’t remember what bottle I drank yesterday :)
What was the mandate?
This article was widely discussed leading up to the 2016 election which is how I came to find it and read it. It probably had a link in a post within a thread.
This article did not cite a court decision because there is none, but I believe that it does represent the opinion of the vast majority of the judiciary. The article does not address the other issue with the term Natural Born Citizen, to wit: Anchor babies. Children born within the borders of the United States are U.S. Citizens at birth (except children of the diplomatic corps) and are not required to undertake naturalization proceedings.
I gave you the author and his meaning. Not some court perverted meaning of it.
The question is, why are you perpetuating the lie?
.
The mandate that John Roberts declared a ‘Tax.’
It is a 'term of law' from that era. Obviously they did not wish naturalized citizens to be eligible for president. Beyond that, opinions differ.
I don’t care what you think you gave!
I’m talking about the actual text of the amendment, which is the sole authority.
Ah, yes.
Well, let’s hope we have a REAL solid conservative SCOTUS now.
We’ve still got at least one to replace.
And yes, when it comes to saving the country, I hope Ginsberg gets sicker as hell as fast as hell.
..spit...
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.