Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: NTHockey

Since this has been such a hotly argued topic as a result of Obama’s ascension to the office of President, I think that it would be useful if the SCOTUS would define, once and for all, the difference between Natural and Native born citizens and to lay out the criteria necessary to qualify for POTUS.

I think you are correct, but there are many who argue differently. If the country wants the criteria changed, then we should have a Constitutional amendment to do so. Then we might see President Jindal, or President Rubio, or President Haley inaugurated.


12 posted on 10/19/2012 12:19:48 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: afraidfortherepublic
this has been such a hotly argued topic as a result of Obama’s ascension

Whether or not Obama was born within the boundaries of the United States has been a hotly argued topic by maybe 10% of the population. In my opinion the jury's still out.

Whether he is a "natural born citizen" even if born in the USA is a hotly argued topic by perhaps 0.05% of the population. No one else really cares. Not even Donald Trump went there.

..there many who argue differently. If the country wants the criteria changed...

Those who "argue differently", (including me) see no requirement that any criteria be changed. I'd happily vote for Jindal for president any time he's on the ballot.

17 posted on 10/19/2012 12:44:36 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: afraidfortherepublic
"I think that it would be useful if the SCOTUS would define, once and for all, the difference between Natural and Native born citizens...
__

Several recent court decisions, like Ankeny, have held that SCOTUS has indeed settled the matter once and for all:

'Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.' (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf)

The Ankeny decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Indiana, and was ripe to be appealed to SCOTUS, but the plaintiffs chose not to do so.
23 posted on 10/19/2012 1:33:01 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: afraidfortherepublic
I think that it would be useful if the SCOTUS would define, once and for all, the difference between Natural and Native born citizens

There is no difference.

169 posted on 01/12/2019 9:48:05 AM PST by Jim Noble (Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson