“Requiring two citizen parents leads to all sorts of absurdities. Some of these we brought up when Mark Hatfield was on RC Radio. What about children adopted from birth? Does the citizenship of the biological mother and father determine or the adopting parents? What about cases where the father is not known? Are those citizens eligible? In suppose in the same category would be in vitro fertilization with anonymous donors. Surrogate mothers? The list goes on and on. The paperwork showing naturalization dates for parents may be difficult to obtain. Birthers would rule them all ineligible.”
This is like the “When does life begin?” issue and the “Is using an IUD murder?” issue. SCOTUS seems to believe that right to life only begins in the third trimester. I'm not sure how that would apply to the NBC issue.
Until an actual NBC case on point is decided by SCOTUS on each of these issues, we will not know. Let's hope that they start with Obama's fact situation.
While the Bar may be liberal, five out of nine justices are not. Remember that second amendment gun rights were affirmed in a decision that “overturned a century of precedent decisions” in spite of the screams and derision of the liberal Bar!
Fogbower Loren (Zotted LorenC):
“Here's one: what about when the father dies before the child is born? Does that satisfy being born to two citizen parents? You're not a citizen if you're dead. If the deceased father was NOT an American citizen, does the child inherit some amorphous ‘allegiance’ by virtue of carrying the genetic material of someone who was not a US citizen when he was conceived? Doesn't that imply that conception, not birth, is the critical moment of concern?
“What if the father was a non-citizen when the child was conceived, but had naturalized before he died? Better yet, what if he was GOING to be naturalized before his child's birth, but died before taking the oath?”
Another Fogbower:
Ooh, that is a good one! As it stands, if a child is born to a deceased parent, doesn't US law still recognize the deceased parent as the child's parent for purposes of inheritance or other benefits designated for descendants (social security, for example)? Of course, you could still be required to prove that you are descended from the deceased, which means that your parentage is established after birth and not before. I would think, then, that after birth, you or the court would have to prove that the dead guy was your father (not too many kids born to a dead mother, though it has happened) after you were born for purposes of determining your citizenship.
I sure as hell don’t need a RINO like Hatfield to explain the “facts of life” to me.
Some of those hypothetical circumstances he cites require a judicial determination. Hair-splitting yak yak won’t accomplish jack about them. (of course, hypothetical situations are usually employed to muddy the waters. They rarely if ever occur IRL)
The fact that Hatfield uses the scurrilous term “birthers” gives him away as the RINO/lib crud that he is.
Why not just say “Tea Baggers?” Or talk about our mommas?