First off, it shouldn't have and barely was a controversy at the time. He was a born US citizen of the eligible age. That is all your Constitution requires.
Second, since Arther's time there has been significant case precedent establishing children of immigrants born in the US as born US citizens.
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
To simplify further: Child of an alien born in the US = Natural born child.
"Natural born" citizenship (often referred to as jus soli) has been long established precedent and is now taken as a given that it applies to all children born within the US, including those born to illegal immigrants. There is no controversy over definitions within the law.
Amendment XIII (banning slavery) was directly contrary to the language in the original Constitution. Your point is moot.
The fact that you're grasping for straws on this one when the very notion of citizenship by birth had been an established principle for more than a century. The rearranging of words is semantics and would and already has been laughed out of courtrooms claiming that they hold any meaning other than the obvious.
Let this go. There is no victory for you at the end of this road.
I like how you keep argueing against points not being made to try and cover up how much you missed the point in the first place. Quit argueing as though anyone has denied citizenship by birth, because nobody has. The arguement is that the Constitution could require more.
With regards to the court case, the discussion may have heavily involved the "natural-born" phrase, but since that wasn't really the questiont to be determined, but rather the meaning of the 14th ammendment which is phrased differently, the definition of "natural-born" was not ruled. Beyond that, most of the support for having all people born in the geographical limits of the US came from adopting British common law as part of the US legal system, and frankly some of those citations were from British legal documents written after the independance of the United States.
There are, at the same time, arguements in that opinion text saying things like "Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not." or saying that pre-revolutionary views include that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
At any rate, since their are clear examples of arguements made to the less broad definition, and no case has ever set out to directly define the phrase, the question of what the requirements are really is quite open.
First off, it shouldn't have and barely was a controversy at the time. He was a born US citizen of the eligible age. That is all your Constitution requires.
Second, since Arther's time there has been significant case precedent establishing children of immigrants born in the US as born US citizens.
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
To simplify further: Child of an alien born in the US = Natural born child.
"Natural born" citizenship (often referred to as jus soli) has been long established precedent and is now taken as a given that it applies to all children born within the US, including those born to illegal immigrants. There is no controversy over definitions within the law.
Amendment XIII (banning slavery) was directly contrary to the language in the original Constitution. Your point is moot.
The fact that you're grasping for straws on this one when the very notion of citizenship by birth had been an established principle for more than a century. The rearranging of words is semantics and would and already has been laughed out of courtrooms claiming that they hold any meaning other than the obvious.
Let this go. There is no victory for you at the end of this road.
I like how you keep argueing against points not being made to try and cover up how much you missed the point in the first place. Quit argueing as though anyone has denied citizenship by birth, because nobody has. The arguement is that the Constitution could require more.
With regards to the court case, the discussion may have heavily involved the "natural-born" phrase, but since that wasn't really the questiont to be determined, but rather the meaning of the 14th ammendment which is phrased differently, the definition of "natural-born" was not ruled. Beyond that, most of the support for having all people born in the geographical limits of the US came from adopting British common law as part of the US legal system, and frankly some of those citations were from British legal documents written after the independance of the United States.
There are, at the same time, arguements in that opinion text saying things like "Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not." or saying that pre-revolutionary views include that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
At any rate, since their are clear examples of arguements made to the less broad definition, and no case has ever set out to directly define the phrase, the question of what the requirements are really is quite open.
And law is semantics.
The thing you don't seem to understand is this issue was settled a long time ago. There are letters from the mid 1800's discussing the definition of natural born citizen, of which the conclusion is someone born in the USA.
Historically speaking the term 'natural born subject' in England and in the Colonies referred to anyone eligible to citizenship at birth.
Both from a political and historical view point the parents status has no bearing on someone being a natural born citizen.
Also do you know why the Supreme Court has not ruled on the definition of 'natural born' yet. It is because they threw out the cases about it without even hearing the arguments. That is how set in stone this is, the courts won't even listen to the arguments because they are so stupid.
The thing you don't seem to understand is this issue was settled a long time ago. There are letters from the mid 1800's discussing the definition of natural born citizen, of which the conclusion is someone born in the USA.
Historically speaking the term 'natural born subject' in England and in the Colonies referred to anyone eligible to citizenship at birth.
Both from a political and historical view point the parents status has no bearing on someone being a natural born citizen.
Also do you know why the Supreme Court has not ruled on the definition of 'natural born' yet. It is because they threw out the cases about it without even hearing the arguments. That is how set in stone this is, the courts won't even listen to the arguments because they are so stupid.
We have, in this discussion, brought up 2 different Supreme Court cases which discuss the subject both lengthily and inconclusively.
Making things up because they sound right to you is not proper debate.
The thing you don't seem to understand is this issue was settled a long time ago. There are letters from the mid 1800's discussing the definition of natural born citizen, of which the conclusion is someone born in the USA.
Historically speaking the term 'natural born subject' in England and in the Colonies referred to anyone eligible to citizenship at birth.
Both from a political and historical view point the parents status has no bearing on someone being a natural born citizen.
Also do you know why the Supreme Court has not ruled on the definition of 'natural born' yet. It is because they threw out the cases about it without even hearing the arguments. That is how set in stone this is, the courts won't even listen to the arguments because they are so stupid.
We have, in this discussion, brought up 2 different Supreme Court cases which discuss the subject both lengthily and inconclusively.
Making things up because they sound right to you is not proper debate.
I am not making things up, the SC has rejected to even hear the cases regarding Obama and his birth. The reason is simple, it is such an established definition no one can argue against it. At best they can offer some support for 1 parent must be a US citizen, but that is still a fringe opinion and Obama still qualifies under that.
To be honest, I'd much rather have Obama then Gingrich in office myself. Simply because Gingrich is in no position to lead. He is hypocritical, corrupt and extremely sleazy. He has proven time and time again in my eyes that he does not take his jobs seriously and he preaches without following his own philosophy. For example, he believes that marriage should between 1 man and 1 woman. How many affairs has he been caught in now?
I'm sorry, but Newt Gingrich can say whatever he wants to try and persuade people to vote for him, but he is just a slimy character and I'd rather see Bachmann in the office before him.
To be honest, I'd much rather have Obama then Gingrich in office myself. Simply because Gingrich is in no position to lead. He is hypocritical, corrupt and extremely sleazy. He has proven time and time again in my eyes that he does not take his jobs seriously and he preaches without following his own philosophy. For example, he believes that marriage should between 1 man and 1 woman. How many affairs has he been caught in now?
I'm sorry, but Newt Gingrich can say whatever he wants to try and persuade people to vote for him, but he is just a slimy character and I'd rather see Bachmann in the office before him.
Well the good news is, Gingrich isnt likely to get the nomination so we wont have to choose between him or Obama.
I am not making things up, the SC has rejected to even hear the cases regarding Obama and his birth. The reason is simple, it is such an established definition no one can argue against it. At best they can offer some support for 1 parent must be a US citizen, but that is still a fringe opinion and Obama still qualifies under that.
I haven't found any case of the Supreme Court throwing out a case questioning the definition of "natural-born." Maybe I just suck at digging, so if you could point me at where these cases were thrown out, I'd be grateful.
However, this guy seems to have been given the same picture of the circumstance as I have.
And I would point to the line "In other words, since the matter has never reached the high court of the land in a case of direct relevance, there has never been established once and for all a rule about who is, and more importantly who is not, a natural-born citizen."
I find it hilarious how a guy who's half white makes some Republicans quite so angry.
Is it because he doesn't have to book and pay to get his tan sprayed on?
I still find it amazing just how much stock is put in being some kinda traditional, dyed in the wool American, even better if you've got a cowboy hat and a ranch.
Seems that's more important than having, say, a clue.
Ok, it's all opinion, but I'd also say, from outside the US, Obama being voted in did a hell of a lot for America's image worldwide, too. To be fair, you could have voted in a stuffed weasel after Bush and most people would have considered it an upgrade, however.
I'm British, tho, and personally I'd let a frenchman be Prime Minister if I was sure he wouldn't fuck things up as royally as Cameron is doing.
If Obama is out at the end of his term, I just hope his last words in office are 'Praise be to Allah, I'm going back home to Iraq' just to troll the nation and set off the rumour mills :)
Apparently there is some Supreme Court precedent that the phrase "natural-born citizen" refers someone who is both born in the United States and has parents who are both US citizens.
Since "natural-born" is never given a definition and the case ruling pointing to both qualifications is the most recent, there would need to be a Supreme Court ruling to determine the eligibility for President of someone with a non-citizen parent, such as Obama.
There is also legal arguements that the use of "natural-born citizen" only for office eligibility and not for any of the citizenship definitions in other government documents, specifically the 14th ammendment, dictates that the phrase must mean something different.
Not that this will have any impact, there is no chance they would disqualify him from running again, but it's funny that after all the conspiratorial birther garbage there may actually be a legal case based on real facts against his eligibility. At any rate, it seems he's off the ballot in the Georgia primaries.
And I guess I should make it abundantly clear, the conspiratorial birther garbage is still very much garbage.
Yea this is stupid, Id really like to see the supreme court hand over the presidency to the GOP again, because you know, voting matters
As long as and here is the kicker one parent ONE is an american Citizen by default you can become president you can be born in China and still be president you can be born on Luna and still be able to be prezzors
I thought we were done with the whole bitching about the definition of "natural-born citizen" thing and this thread was just running on the derail involving Seekster, Amnestic and others. >.>
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
Even if natural-born Citizen requires two Citizen parents, there is no question that Obama is still a Citizen and thus, eligible.
There, that's settled.
The other conversation may continue, of course. ;)
Hmmm...what if you were born in US waters, not on land or on a ship?
Could a mermaid run for PotUS?