Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: CDR Kerchner
Cornell Law School
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

Natural born citizen
A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States.

Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII. The constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. One can be a citizen while not being a "natural born" citizen if, for example, they gained their citizenship through the process of naturalization.

Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark; 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court noted in Perkins v. Elg that this is true even of citizens who were born in the United States yet grew up in foreign countries.
[...]


20 posted on 09/08/2018 5:29:37 PM PDT by familyop ("Welcome to Costco. I love you." - -Costco greeter in the movie, "Idiocracy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: familyop

The 14th Amendment was written solely to bestow citizenship on slaves born in America. It had nothing to do with the requirement to be president.


23 posted on 09/08/2018 5:40:15 PM PDT by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: familyop

The holding in the WKA 1898 Supreme Court decision. It declared WKA a “Citizen”, not a “natural born Citizen”. Read the holding precisely and don’t read into it more than is actually said. You should not add words to the explicit holding of the court in the WKA case. Read the holding, not dicta. Here is a summarization of the holding

“The Supreme Court considered the “single question” in the case to be “whether a child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”[109] It was conceded that if Wong was a U.S. citizen, “the acts of congress known as the ‘Chinese Exclusion Acts,’ prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.”[110]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


24 posted on 09/08/2018 5:42:58 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner (natural born Citizen, natural law, Emer de Vattel, Supreme Court, presidential, eligibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: familyop

Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark; 14th Amendment.
......................................................
wrong! There is NoT a consensus of opinion as the case you cite deals with “citizenship” It does NOT deal with NATURAL BORN CITIZENS which MUST have two parents American Citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Vatell’s Law of Nations clearly cites the conditions which the Framers followed.


27 posted on 09/08/2018 5:46:09 PM PDT by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson