You said quite a bit about something you clearly haven't researched.
buridan's exact question was presented to SCOTUS in 1971 in Rogers v. Bellei. It is settled law. SCOTUS ruled that it is absolutely within Congress's power to set residency requirements for citizens born overseas. The dissenting opinion agreed with buridan that Congress should not have such power because it doesn't have such powers over 14th Amendment citizens.
In any case, the residency requirements have been repealed.
You asked about residency requirements for parents. Rogers v. Bellei was regarding residency requirements for the child. I misread your comment.
Thank you for the reference to Rogers v. Bellei, which I should have known about. Thanks!
I sincerely apologize to you if I seemed rude. That was not mt intent.
I don’t think my statement you quoted has been properly applied to the situation you cover in your post.
If a poster CLAIMS something by his reasoning - and that is all that happened which I was responding to - and doesn’t cite where the Constitution defines something specifically or a statute or a court decision - then it IS only their reasoning/belief and not adjudication.
You then cite a court decision that affirms Congress does have this power under the Constitution to set residency/age requirements, etc. Well, there you go. The poster was trying to say the opposite, that it wasn’t permitted because in his/her view it was extra-Constitutional.
Well, I fail to see what it was in my statement that wouldn’t fit within the framework of your comments, when my statement is properly applied.
I was speaking generally, trying to show that a person on the internet or any other venue that offers reasoning, or opinion, isn’t the law, whether speaking statutorally or Constitutionally or judicially.
I really wasn’t intending to say that nothing about that issue had ever been decided in a court case but was merely saying ***THAT POSTER’S belief/reasoning*** had not been lawfully established just by saying it.
And his/her belief was that it isn’t Constitutional, and he/she could hold on to that belief even in the face of a court case to the contrary. Because court decisions are the subject of endless debate as to whether a decision got it right or wrong, Constitutionally speaking.
But they themselves are not able to establish THEIR contrary view by coming here and expressing it but citing no case, nor quoting a Constitutional definition, etc.
That’s why I appreciate Cruz and others on his side of the NBC divide who quote statutes. They are trying to nail down something better than just, “I’ve always seen it this way, etc etc...’”
But then along comes someone who says, this statute goes too far, it isn’t according to the Constitution in my view. But can’t establish it.
Others will say the opposite, that the statute did not go anywhere near far enough in defining a natural born citizen because it didn’t demand being born inside a boundary line or two citizen parents.
And around and around we go.
I just know that Cruz himself has gone over and over this stuff, of course he has. As have many scholars and other legal types. The weight of the matter comes down on the NBC meaning of citizen by birth not by naturalization, far as I can see, and that’s actually what the debate is about here, rather than the tangential matters that do come up.