Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter when the UK impressed US citizen men into service for the British Royal Navy in the early 19th century, which they had the perfectly valid legal right to do under international law.
You keep going on and on about 'international law'.There was no real,binding,international law in the 18th and 19th centuries.There were treaties,law by consent of nations between the signatories,which were really only binding until a powerful enough country chose to ignore the treaty.The British Royal Navy ruled the seas for the most part in the 18th and 19th centuries and did whatever they wanted.The US never accepted the theory that the British had a valid legal right to impress their sailors.It was one of the causes of the War of 1812.
If you need to keep going back 200 years to make your point its not a very strong point.Trump is the son of a mother born a British subject.Do you honestly believe that in 2016 if the UK passed a law making the children of a British subject at birth British citizens then they could draft Trump or make him subject to UK income taxes and have a perfectly legal and enforceable right to do so under international law.
Since under Israeli law all jews have the 'right of return' would it be your position that no jew can be president because they are all 'potential Israeli citizens'?
You keep going on and on about 'international law'.There was no real,binding,international law in the 18th and 19th centuries.There were treaties,law by consent of nations between the signatories,which were really only binding until a powerful enough country chose to ignore the treaty.The British Royal Navy ruled the seas for the most part in the 18th and 19th centuries and did whatever they wanted.The US never accepted the theory that the British had a valid legal right to impress their sailors.It was one of the causes of the War of 1812.
If you need to keep going back 200 years to make your point its not a very strong point.Trump is the son of a mother born a British subject.Do you honestly believe that in 2016 if the UK passed a law making the children of a British subject at birth British citizens then they could draft Trump or make him subject to UK income taxes and have a perfectly legal and enforceable right to do so under international law.
Since under Israeli law all jews have the 'right of return' would it be your position that no jew can be president because they are all 'potential Israeli citizens'?
The whole argument is stupid. The U.S. Constitution does not have an enforcement provision for ineligibility. The chances that a President would be elected, take the oath, and then promptly impeached and removed are nil.
This issue was phony with Obama as well. The issue had more resonance since Kenya and Indonesia are very "foreign" in the eyes of Americans. Canada on the other hand is seen as a brother country. Whether we and Canadians like it or not we're joined at the hip.
Did you even read this exchange, or did you just lash out with a knee jerk reaction response? For cripes sake, before you spout off, READ the context of the conversation, not just buzz words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Ankeny v Daniels
Did you read the bolded part? Don't skim, read it. THAT is what I was responding to here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Except Cruz was born in Canada....
???
Is that now clear? If not, go back to the top of the post and start over.
I frankly wonder how anyone qualified then. Did they go around en masse making all 500,000 or so people in the 13 Colonies citizens? Where was the oath taken? The District Courts must have been pretty busy places.
They became US citizens when the US became independent from the UK. The Constitutional Convention knew that there was a problem with the British (or any other foreign) allegiance of those who acquired US citizenship at that time, which is why they made an exception for such persons only.
"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"
Were black people or women allowed to run for President under the "originalist" argument?
What does the Constitution say?
"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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
The first Black candidate to appear on a presidential ticket was Frederick Douglass as VP in 1872. Douglass ran with Victoria Woodhull as the ticket's Presidential candidate.
Black men acquired the right to vote before women of any race acquired the same right, so Frederick Douglass could have voted for himself, but Victoria Woodhull couldn't have voted for herself.
No, it isn't. The NBC requirement was originated by John Jay in his July 1787 letter to George Washington for the specific purpose of precluding foreign citizens/subjects (which those born dual citizens are) from eligibilty for President and Commander in Chief.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
You keep going on and on about 'international law'.There was no real,binding,international law in the 18th and 19th centuries.There were treaties,law by consent of nations between the signatories,which were really only binding until a powerful enough country chose to ignore the treaty.The British Royal Navy ruled the seas for the most part in the 18th and 19th centuries and did whatever they wanted.The US never accepted the theory that the British had a valid legal right to impress their sailors.It was one of the causes of the War of 1812.
If you need to keep going back 200 years to make your point its not a very strong point.
Nope. I gave the current example of the US/Iranian citizen currently being held by Iran. Nothing the US can do about it, as he's an Iranian citizen and they can legally enforce their own laws on him.
Quote:
Trump is the son of a mother born a British subject.Do you honestly believe that in 2016 if the UK passed a law making the children of a British subject at birth British citizens then they could draft Trump or make him subject to UK income taxes and have a perfectly legal and enforceable right to do so under international law.
No, they can't, because such laws aren't retroactive.
British citizenship didn't descend to a foreign-born child from a British mother until 1983.
Quote:
Since under Israeli law all jews have the 'right of return' would it be your position that no jew can be president because they are all 'potential Israeli citizens'?
Right of return is not automatic citizenship at birth.
"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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
Let's do look at what the Constitution says.
"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;"
natural born citizen "OR" a citizen of the United States.
"OR" CONNECTS CLAUSES REPRESENTING ALTERNATIVE
This totally follows what scholars have concluded, following British Law - "Natural born" and "citizen" are one and the same. The conditions are only different as "natural born" is on US soil and "citizen" is a person born on foreign soil to a US citizen parent.
"[i]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;"
The exception for the newly made citizens when the US became an independent country is in bold. Everyone else has to be a natural born citizen.
Quote:
"Natural born" and "citizen" are one and the same.
No, they are not. Otherwise the Constitutional requirement for POTUS would just be "citizen," as it is for members of Congress.
Quote:
The conditions are only different as "natural born" is on US soil and "citizen" is a person born on foreign soil to a US citizen parent.
No. We know from John Jay's letter and the timing on when the wording was changed in the drafting of the Constitution that the NBC requirement was intended to prevent foreign citizens/subjects (which born dual citizens are) from eligibility for POTUS and Commander in Chief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
