Posted on 07/17/2020 9:58:52 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The endless arguments and the case law that exists contradict this assertion. One person who belives your assertion is our own Freeper, Lurkinanloomin. He is wrong, of course, and quite confused in his thinking. What he is asserting is really what he believes is ought to be. He has a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to demand that his opinion become Constitutional and the law of the land. Only the courts can do that, or a Constitutional Amendment could make all of the arguments moot. The courts have decided without saying so that this is a political question and they intend to stay out of it. Politics is messy and this argument will continue in the messy fashion that we have. Before long, we will have a Presidential candidate who was born of a non citizen mother, with an natural born American father who donated to a sperm bank. Take your pick of where the birth occurred.
You, are the one who is confused.
Lawyers use negatives to drive out ambiguity. NO person ....who shall NOT HAVE attained...
When you clearly state what a person cannot be, you are left with a clear picture of what that person is.
When you craft a statement with positives, you open up the possibilities of questions and “yeah buts”
natural born Citizen.
One who is born a Citizen.
If one is born of two Canada citizen parents, how do you attach German or Polish Citizenship to the child??? You cannot.
If one is born on Canada soil, can that child be a citizen of Paraguay? How?? Who determines?
Name a Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidate who was declared ineligible. And then cite a Supreme Court decision that addressed the Natural Born Citizen clause as it applies to the election of the President. And, Minor v. Heppersett is not such a case. That case was about Women’s Suffrage. Have you read it?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text
No Name was born 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone to two US Citizens.
Was no Name a US Citizen, or a Citizen of Panama?
When you have to run through a decision tree to argue No Name is a natural born US Citizen, you also have to ignore Panama law designating No Name as a Panama citizen.
Panama declared independance from Columbia and signed a treaty with the US.
Thanks for offering to debate Supreme Court decisions. Kinda proves my point.
When a baby is born on the soil of two Citizen parents, there are zero yeah buts. The baby has one single Citizenship.
If circumstances support alternate assigment of Citizenship, then, you cannot be a natural born Citizen of one Country
At least here in the USofA, we have a written Constitution that we can argue over rather than some vague notion that must bend to will of politicians willy nilly.
I voted for NoName. He was on the ballot in all states, which means that he was deemed to be qualified for the Office of the President. Since he was born of two U.S. Citizens and his father was on active duty as a Commissioned Officer of the U.S. Navy serving in Panama as a consequence of official orders, a rationale person would assume that he was a natural born citizen, but the courts have been silent on that point, so we will never know for sure. The arguments will continue forever, and no one who counts will ever settle them.
Thank you for proving my point, again.
Wherever you have ambiguity with respect to natural born Citizen status, the person is not a natural born Citizen.
The fact No Name was on a ballot is not relevant.
When you rely on man made law, statue, or SCOTUS decisions you are Naturalized, and there is nothing wrong about that.
When you have a small group of Senators stroking their chins, reading the Canal treaty, and trying to justify the Panama Canal Zone as part of the USA, you are a Naturalized Citizen.
Outstandingly logical post, and I like your music.
Your points don’t count. Figure out how to get standing, bring a case, prevail through the Supreme Court, and then your points will count. Meanwhile you are just passing gas. Have fun. And work on your arguments.
My points count for everything.
You have lost the ability to discern
Have a great week end!
Under the 20th Amendment it is Congress’ duty to qualify the candidate as eligible.
They failed. with Obama.
What we found out the hard way is there is no mechanism to prevent an usurper.
Ideally each secretary of state of the individual states would require proof of eligibility to appear on the ballot.
Earlier a CA secretary of state did deny a candidate for failing to provide such proof.
Proving the founders were correct.
Not entirely clear that McCain was born in the canal zone, he refused to release his birth certificate.
He may have been born in the country of Panama.
Thanks for the help, I’m usually alone arguing with the anti-Constitutionalists.
You could be correct.
I recall no name was born in a hospital, not a navy ship.
I do not know if the hospital was in the canal zone or Country of Panama
A few cycles back I asked the MO SoS for the certifications for presidential candidates in MO elections. She sent me certificates from the RNC and DNC “certifying that each candidate met the requirements for the office for which they were running. I asked if that was all it took and she responded in the affirmative- IOWs, any party could certify anyone and the SoS (of MO, at last) would have to accept it as fact.
So much for “checks and balances”.
As we learned to our detriment in 2008 there is no mechanism to stop an usurpation.
The secretaries of state of the various states COULD require proof of eligibility. A candidate was removed from CA ballot years ago for not qualifying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.