> natural born citizen
You are both wrong. The constitution mentions the phrase but never defines it. The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as “natural born”, stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.
In a 2012 New York case, Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections, the plaintiff challenged Barack Obama’s presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that “natural born citizen” required the president “to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents”. To this the Court responded, “Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil”. The opinion then listed Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover.
That’s the facts, Jack.
-SB
GregNH - do you have any handy links to or memory of SCOTUS or legal experts weighing on the jus soli and jus sanguinis definiteion of NBC? It’s being discussed and although I remember the research threads well, I don’t remember the supporting details.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3805345/posts?page=1362#1362
There was some fascinating legal coverage during the campaign, which covered this, I think on CSPAN, from some of President Trump’s team. It eviscerated the 14th Amendment justification for anchor babies.
As for the courts, they’ve been pulling stuff out of their rear for a long time.
Oh, btw.
0moeba’s dad was a Brit subject at best.
(Think King George III.)
Don’t care where he was hatched, whether it was the Rothschilds’ or the Kremlin.
Thanks for that.
Got me to go read Strunk v. New York State Bd. of Elections.
the NY court also thought Strunk was looney tunes - which is a different issue.
I’m surprised the court even mentioned Article II, section 1 - as the court chose to dismiss all.
I’m guessing it gave other courts cover.
Andrew Jackson was born in 1767 in America, so I am assuming he was a citizen as covered under the exception and probably shouldn’t have been mentioned.
I wonder what Naturalization Act applied when Pres. Obama was elected? Interesting list in the reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Law_of_1802
thanx again.