Not disagreeing with you…this is what I find defining “natural born citizen”.
Though the Constitution is vague in what constitutes a natural-born citizen, Congress has stepped in to attempt to fill in the gap. Under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as citizens of the United States upon birth… or natural-born citizens:
Anyone born inside the United States. The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
8 USC is government regulation concerning immigration and how citizenship can be conferred or granted by the US government. The title of 8 USC is: ALIENS AND NATIONALITY.
None of your references fall outside the domain of the 14th Amendment. While useful for understanding how citizenship can be bestowed it is not applicable to the concept of a natural born citizen as 8 USC would not be applicable to such people as they are not aliens and their nationality is not in question.
That depends on what court gets the challenge. The judges are supposed to be impartial but we all know that isn’t true. It should head to the SCOTUS so it can be put to bed once and for all.
There hasn’t been a Supreme Court opinion regarding What is defined as natural born citizens for the purposes of Presidential eligibility , they have ruled on cases concerning ordinary citizenship and dictums to vote or hold office but not for U.S. President
Congress has messed things up regarding citizenship of what is natural born and citizens.
Right - from what I’m reading that’s not the issue. She was born to two parents who were not US citizens. She was effectively an anchor baby which makes her native born but not natural born. She also spent much of her life up to adulthood living in Canada. That part may not have much bearing on her birth status but it speaks a lot to her lies about being raised in America.
How so? I don’t remember the natural born aspect being mentioned in any amendments. 14th or otherwise.
The Framers probably should have defined it within the Constitution but under common law at the time it was common knowledge that citizenship was conferred by the father. It didn’t become as convoluted as it is now until much much much later.
The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. Many scholars have also concluded that those who meet the legal requirements for, regardless of place of birth, are also natural-born citizens.
It hasn’t directly been addressed at the SCOTUS level.
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
I get the point @LouMan but what bothers me is that 21st century “scholars” are putting a modern spin on the words of the Founders which is deviating from THEIR original intent of what a natural born citizen was. I’m sorry, but I don’t want some anchor baby or DACA cheat ever becoming POTUS.
Not to worry should she move forward to not support be ready for the dreaded racist label.
Wear to proudly in this car.
People throwing their hat in the ring have little experience yet think they are qualified to run this country, BO comes to mind and we know the results of that poor choice.
As much as I despise the Democrats, the Left and this woman Harris, I dont see where she isnt qualified under the constitution.
she was born here
her parents emigrated here and had legal status from what Ive read and they weren’t “invaders” or agents of a foreign land
by statue she is an American citizen
She is over 35 years old
she has lived in the United states for over 14 years.
she qualifies, but that doesn’t make her the ideal candidate because… well she is a liberal, a kooky leftist and she is economically illiterate like her brethrens
See the Venus case, and remember the Supreme court at the time was made up of men who were alive and participated in the formation of our constitution, who had this to say on the matter.
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
Vattel , who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
The fact that the last president had the experience if an amoeba and you said nothing is astounding. At least Trump has experience in the business world and which is far more than the community activist.
This was the race to the bottom and the left won with the wicked witch of the east.
That you would bitch about Trump after supporting clinton is a mystery to the world. Sour grapes? Butt hurt?
But this time you can choose a woman of color and scream racism when people dislike her.
In what ways is Trumps executive experience translating to running the country? Is running a business the same as running the country?
Like Trump, Obama had advisors. Difference is, Obama used his advisors to help him be successful with his agenda. Trump doesn’t listen to his advisors. He knows more than his generals. He knows more about border security than Mrs. Nielsen.
Trump can’t read a TelePrompTer. He doesn’t know history. He doesn’t know how the government works. Obama did. Even if I didn’t agree with his policies (I didn’t) he could at least articulate a point and trust his advisors.
Also, I didn’t vote for Clinton. Was even old enough to vote then. I voted libertarian every election except for 2008.
