You have no idea what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof “ means do you and that is a wholly different argument from the NBC clause of the Constitution.
Some of you anti-sovereignty people actually believe that the 14th amendment gives citizenship to the anchor babies. Whether it does or does not, the 14th amendment only deals with citizenship. Citizenship would only qualify the anchor babies for president if they were alive at the adoption of the Constitution. Since they were not, these mere citizens cannot become president. Only natural born citizens can run for office of president now.
Anchor babies are not now, never have been and never will be NBC. They cannot rightfully run for the presidency without the Constitution being amended. They are the very reason the founders stated what they did about who could become president in Article 2 section 1 clause 5 of the Constitution.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Plain as day. One - a natural born citizen or two - a US citizen at the time of the adoption of our Constitution are the only ones eligible to run for the office of President.
In the oral argument of Nguyen one of the Justices joked about the literal meaning of that clause as written
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
As Written it means that no one can run for President unless they were a natural born Citizen OR a citizen of the United states ...either qualifier.... AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION . After those people were dead , no one could be President.
Yes, that is what it says.
So if that wasn’t their intent what did they really mean.
Natural born citizen OR citizen of the US at time of Adoption. Years down the road they knew the second wouldn’t be needed. It was only needed in the beginning.
So if you don’t take it as written - what could they have meant....
So where is it today.
Today, you have Kim Wong Ark that very likely will not be overturned and a Court of Appeals case that says Kim Wong Ark indicates Obama can run for President.
It is possible that Kim Wong Ark could be overturned. You never know. But to say that it is clear that Obama can’t run for President is just plain wrong.
Justice Fuller, in the dissent of Wong Kim Ark, didn’t agree that Ark should be able to run for President. He knew the majority opinion would allow it and felt that it set the wrong precedent.
I happen to agree.
But it is what it is....
HUH?
You make so many leaps in your arguments against me, why would anyone listen to you on citizenship law?
How am I “anti-sovereignty”? Who died and made you ruler of this issue?
You are wrong.
NOBODY with any authority under the law agrees with you on this matter.
The Court cases your small choir comes up with were all decided BEFORE the various acts of Congress defined citizenship for us. (Look at a Passport application).
The Court rulings you rest your very weak case upon, therefore, had to use Common Law and Natural Law definitions, as Congress had not provided guidance. (YES, Congress interprets the Constitution all the time, that is part of the job of Congress, to ENACT provisions of the Constitution.)
Your case is very, very weak.