No. Citizenship of the parents is not relevant.
The key “factor” in being an NBC (Natural-Born-Citizen) has been defined by the Indiana judge, and now Malihi (who relied upon the Indiana judge’s decision) as merely being born on US soil. Parents citizenship has no bearing.
Correct. That is the law. That is how the Supreme Court of the United States will decide the case if the issue ever reaches it.
And, as the Congressional Research Service Opinion spells out in simple terms that anyone can understand, that is what was intended.
A person born outside the United States is born under the sovereignty of some other state which would then have jurisdiction to dictate his acts. A person born inside the United States is subject, at birth only to the sovereignty of the United States.
But then, what is our recourse to right obvious judicial errors?
There is no judicial error here. On the record before him, the judge made the correct decision exactly as forecast.
About two years ago, FReeper BP2 said that an anchor baby could one day run for president. You agree, right? It just doesn’t seem “right”.
You are dead wrong. My daughter was born in the USA to a foreign citizen. She is a dual citizen at birth and she is subject to the sovereignty of two countries. Just like Obama. She is legaly recognized as a Born Dual Citizen in her "home" country, and a natural born citizen in the USA , per this decision.
This ruling means she can run for president and govern for the interests of two countries, carry several passports, serve in a foreign military, and like a million other dual citizens run for US President. It's official now, we accept dual citizens into the presidency.
My daughter has an American BC and has foreign citizenship at birth. She is legally entitled to have two passports, serve in a foreign military, and then run for president of the United States.
My daughter can stand in front of the American people and promise to send half of our assets to another country if elected while waving her foreign passport on election day, and be qualified as a natural born citizen in the USA.
This ruling certifies the US presidency as an international office. We the people can be governed by a foreign citizen, such as Obama, who have no loyalty to American interests. The only difference going forward is the next foreign citizen who runs will not have to hide dual nationality as Obama did. He can use it to his advantage, promising to lavish his home country with American aid.
The constitution has been amended. Control of the US armed forces has devovled to a foreign citizen.
>>...A person born outside the United States is born under the sovereignty of some other state which would then have jurisdiction to dictate his acts. A person born inside the United States is subject, at birth only to the sovereignty of the United States....<<
Again, that flies in the face of simple common sense and I gave two *very common* examples where a child born inside the US is subject to two (or more) sovereign nations depending on parental citizenship. Two couples I know would tell you and the S.C. to go pound sand as their children (all born within the US) were born with dual citizenship and dual national allegiances as both fathers are foreign citizens. The US does not have sole claim to those kids and those kids can (and do) eagerly claim their foreign citizenship as well as their US citizenship. I fail to see how something this simple completely escapes those in black-robes who “think they know better”.
So, the founding fathers sought to best assure the integrity and allegiance of a presidential candidate using the common-sense answer to the following common-sense question: A child born in the US of two US citizens forms a birth allegiance to the US and what other country? Answer: None.
That later courts have ginned up a non-common-sense alternate definition of NBC does not in any way remove the risk the founding fathers clearly sought to avoid.
Like I said, the courts can define terms that defy common sense. They can say that Obama has no birth allegiance to Kenya *legally* and that’s fine. But that does not address the dangers the founders wished to avoid. The founding fathers wanted to avoid, “matters of the heart” (IIRC) — emotional allegiances formed at birth — that might cloud or affect presidential decisions. A legal definition may stop some civil or criminal action, but it does nothing to address emotional bonds. Yet again: common sense, in spite of any legalistic, court ruling that defies it.
Like Wickard v. Fillburn which ruled that a farmer growing crops for his own use affects commerce between the states because he won’t need to purchase any, the mental gymnastics required to arrive at that decision, and the presidential eligibility decision are (imho) quite similar. Only an over-educated, hyper-rhetorical, legalistic mind could fool itself into jumping through those hoops.
To allow yourself the intellectual dishonesty needed to willingly accept either of those decisions (and countless similar others) in now way makes them correct. They are erroneous based on simple common-sense and we have no feasible recourse to correct it. There are too many apathetic, complacent citizens who accept that the courts are infallible and are a superior, rather than co-equal, branch of govt.
I can’t state it any clearer. All I can do is try to explain the common-sense point of view to someone. If I fail to communicate it clear enough, then that’s all I can do. I can’t “understand” it for them too.