Replies

Sorry, but you still don’t get it.

If you miss it again, you’ll have to repeat ConLaw again next semester.

Herewith begins the 2d Lesson:

USC, Art II, Section 1 defines the requirements to serve as POTUS. They include among other things that the President must be a Natural Born Citizen.

No definition of a NBC is given.

Since then, the US Code and the Courts (and every loudmouth) have defined and described such eligibility requirements.

The USC did not, and could not have addressed all the realities of the modern world. For example, what about a person born aboard a US registered aircraft, in flight over international waters, a person born overseas to one or two US citizen parents, or on a US military base overseas, or the child of a pregnant US soldier not on a US base, but afield under legal orders, and so many other possible scenarios.

That’s where the US Code comes in, and it does not change Art II, it simply further defines the terms and conditions therein.

The problem with the “citizenship crybabys” is that each has their own definition of what a NBC should be.... and of course, they think only they could be right.

Some ideas advanced are:

1: Must be Native born to 2 citizen parents is one claim
2: Must be Native born to at least 1 citizen born parent is another.
3: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents.
4: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents
5: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship rights must be renounced at birth
6: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship must be renounced at birth.
7: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship rights must be renounced before 18.
8: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parent and any foreign citizenship must be renounced before 18.
9: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parent, with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
10: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship rights must be renounced at birth with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
11: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship must be renounced at birth with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
12: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship rights must be renounced before 18 with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
13: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship must be renounced before 18 with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
14: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship must be renounced before 18 with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements, must be left handed and must know the Table of Elements, including Atomic Weights, from memory.

etc.

Every non-lawyer, bartender, taxi driver and hairdresser has their own idea on Presidential eligibility. All the conflicting opinions are just that, legally meaningless opinions. It’s like the Infield Fly Rule. Everyone knows it exists, but very few can actually define it’s current status.

As a Republic, we have all agreed to live under the laws of that Republic. Those laws are called the US Code. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and that law. Sorry you don’t like that.

And please, the Obama comment only makes it look like you don’t know what is right in the rest of your post, which we all now know is an apt description of the knowledge in your post....