Replies

I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Vattel wrote that a man stationed in a foreign land in the service of his country cannot be regarded as having quit his nation. He is there at his nation's bidding.

As for myself, I have always said that where go America's fighting men, there America is also. It is under their feet, wherever they may tread.

"I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Vattel wrote that a man stationed in a foreign land in the service of his country cannot be regarded as having quit his nation. He is there at his nation's bidding.

As for myself, I have always said that where go America's fighting men, there America is also. It is under their feet, wherever they may tread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question would come down to whether or not the children were 1) born on a base that was considered "sovereign territory" of the U.S. and 2) born with sole allegiance to the U.S.

Remember the reverse occurs in our country's case. A child born to a U.S. citizen mother while in another country, assumes the mother's U.S. citizenship by statue (assuming the mother meets the age/residency requirements).

As has been stated before, the natural born Citizen requirement for the position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces was really (and still is) a national security issue.

If one is born with divided citizenship (inheriting a parent(s) foreign citizenship) and therefore divided allegiance owed, it presents a conflict with not only being the Commander in Chief, but also when engaging foreign governments in treaties. The office of the President is in a singularly unique position.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors

Article. II. Section. 2.

"When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her."

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Only if the mother was naturalized by the time of the children's birth. I have a child born to a non-naturalized spouse, born in Japan while I was in service with the Navy. That child has the opportunity to aspire to be many things, but President is not one of them, unless the Constitution is amended. That of course, is my opinion. . .

I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

The Supreme Court already gave it's "opinion" on NBC in Minor vs Happersett, and I'd hardly call a unanimous 9-0 ruling that has never been overturned a "footnote".

Any interpretation of Natural Born Citizen that does not work to reinforce the likelihood of undivided loyalties does not meet the gold standard set forth in the Constitution, "with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar."

That said, I would like to see the current Court try to wriggle around Minor.