No, The Constitution Does Not Allow Children Born Of Non-Citizens To Become President Of The United States

GATEWAYPUNDIT ^ | 1/19/2024 | Paul Ingrassia

[Seruzawa]

Some here might remember the “sovereign citizen” debates. Thread after thread of endless arguing. Any time some fool tried to assert his “sovereign citizenship” to avoid paying his income taxes he went to jail, whether the judge’s courtroom flag had a gold fringe on it or not. Yet the “experts” assured everyone that sovereign citizenship was sound legal ground. They still went to jail if they didn’t pay their taxes. Or probably ever.

This natural born citizenship issue will achieve no better results. It will take a constitutional amendment to define citizenship. Until then anyone born here can run. No such amendment is getting passed by November 2024.

[Gaffer]

The problem isn’t in the law, really. It is with the person(s) certifying the eligibility of the candidate. In Obama’s case that person was Nancy Pelosi as the head of the Democrat Party, IIRC. She just signed off on him and that was that.

[Political Junkie Too]

If the debate *in the 1780s* (not the 1860s) was about land versus lineage (jus soli vs. jus sanguinis vs. both together), I would posit that in the 1790s travel in and out of the United States was practically impossible for most citizens.

Only the most wealthy (or ambassadors of the United States) could afford passage on sailing ships to England or France for a six-week voyage under hardship conditions. If someone did manage to obtain such passage, they would stay in Europe for years before returning to the United States.

Lineage to the land was well-known. I would think that to be true of most people in the 1790s; the townspeople of any town in the United States would have known who begat whom through the generations (they used to document that in family Bibles), and so "land" was a proxy for citizenship by parentage, too.

Given that people didn't travel far distances back then, "land" and "parentage" were synonymous in practice.

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

Given that Obama already violated this, why does the author believe it will be enforced in the future?

This is my position.

Also the "courts" are idiots/liars.

[DiogenesLamp]

so, no don jr?

What's Don Jr got to do with anything?

[DiogenesLamp]

I always get a kick out of this sort of stuff:

Under the 14th Amendment’s Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in these people.

Yes, the 14th amendment is a naturalization law. Anyone who derives their citizenship from the 14th amendment is a naturalized citizen. Not a natural citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

nope, no Trump kids except Tiffany would be eligible. I don’t know that most of the kids think like their father about the USA anyway, so why would we assume any would be great in a govt position?

How do you figure this? Were they born outside of the US?

[DiogenesLamp]

What a crock of crap! There is NO DIFFERENCE between a 14th Amendment citizen and a Natural Born Citizen.

And here is this idiot lawyer telling us what lawyers have all been taught to think based on the opinions of other, long dead lawyers.

The 14th amendment is a naturalization.

Slaves could not be natural citizens because their parents weren't citizens. They had to naturalize them, and that's what this amendment did.

If you go to the trouble of reading the debates on the 14th amendment, you will quickly learn that congress referred to the 14th amendment as a naturalization.

So what about the Indians? Why weren't Indians "citizens" after 1868? Why did it take till 1920 something before Indians became citizens?

[DiogenesLamp]

The Constitution does not define ‘Natural Born Citizen’, so there is not much to go on from that aspect.

Yes it does. The word "citizen" is the clue.

"Citizen", in the American usage, comes from Switzerland. The English term was "subject."

We threw that away, and started using the term "Citizen", because that is what the Swiss Republic called their people, and at the time it was the *ONLY* other Republic on the planet.

Every other nation was a monarchy, and they used the term "Subject." Only Republics used "Citizen."

So "Citizen" means the framers intended that the Vattel definition be used.

And here is a page from an 1817 Pennsylvania law book that flat out says the intent was that Vattel is used.

And it was produced from the work of the ENTIRE SUPREME COURT of PENNSYLVANIA, some of whom were involved in the Constitutional process.

[DiogenesLamp]

Neither George Washington’s nor John Adams’ nor Thomas Jefferson’s nor James Madison’s nor James Monroe’s nor John Q. Adams nor Andy Jackson’s parents were citizens of the United States.

You should read the eligibility requirements. All these people were exempted.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some here might remember the “sovereign citizen” debates. Thread after thread of endless arguing. Any time some fool tried to assert his “sovereign citizenship” to avoid paying his income taxes he went to jail, whether the judge’s courtroom flag had a gold fringe on it or not. Yet the “experts” assured everyone that sovereign citizenship was sound legal ground. They still went to jail if they didn’t pay their taxes. Or probably ever.

Good job! Now tell us about the January 6ers.

[lepton]

Whether it does or not directly, the SCOTUS has said they do. If you disagree with them, then fix that rather than going bonkers on each individual who comes up whether the principle in place applies or not.

[Godebert]

bookmark

[Godebert]

The Constitution does not give the meaning of “natural born citizen”, so who knows about the eligibility of Nikki and others.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

[mosaicwolf]

"Probably technically correct. Will not go anywhere. Let’s not waste our time on this."

Constitution? Do we have one of those?

[Godebert]

"Whether it does or not directly, the SCOTUS has said they do.

The Supreme Court of the United States has NEVER applied the term 'natural born citizen' to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

[piytar]

Constitution? Do we have one of those?

Effectively nope.

Well at least the Second Amendment has some legs now thanks to the SCOTUS rulings. But a lot of the Constitution is simply ignored. Why we have to pick our political battles where we can win for now.

That's part of why Trump winning is so important: He's been good on SCOTUS picks and the next President will pick two or maybe three Justices. That's the fight we have to win now to move towards the Constitution having teeth again.

Frankly that's by far the most important thing in play right now.

[piytar]

Should have added the importance of picks for lower federal courts, too...

[HollyB]

Nikki had zero parents who were citizens