U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2013, 10:43 AM
 
36,948 posts, read 16,388,115 times
Reputation: 9940

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_windwalker View Post
I've seen this phrase before, several times. It's one of the reasons I do not understand the "anchor baby" that has been allowing so many Mexican women to stay in the US when they are citizens of Mexico, and she became pregnant by a Mexican national before she delivered the baby in the US. Both parents owe their allegiance to a foreign country, so how does the baby become an American?
Good question. If the Supreme Court ever re-visits the true intent of the 14th Amendment they would rule that illegal immigrant parents cannot give birth to a U.S. citizen on our soil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2013, 10:44 AM
 
1,597 posts, read 979,412 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post

The 14th Amendment doesn't even specifically mention the exact words 'Natural Born Citizen' like Article 2 Section 1 does. When the 14th Amendment was created, the natural born Citizen clause, Article 2 Section 1 was never amended to it. It was left separate. What was the specific reason?
There was never any intent for the 14th Amendment to alter the qualification for president under Article 2 Section 1.

And, there was no by-product of the 14th Amendment subverting or liberalizing Article 2 Section 1 in any way.

These are two different parts of the Constitution, dealing with different subjects, non-overlappingly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2013, 10:48 AM
 
1,597 posts, read 979,412 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
Current consitutional law includes individuals born on foreign soil to American parents for purposes of Article II.
Does not!

"Current law" is still the law of origination. Nothing has changed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2013, 10:49 AM
 
1,597 posts, read 979,412 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbobobbo View Post
Obama is taking the oath of office today. Enjoy your whine!
There are oath keepers lurking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2013, 10:51 AM
 
1,597 posts, read 979,412 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
So a child born to a widow in this circumstance is not a citizen?
Don't be facetious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2013, 10:51 AM
 
1,523 posts, read 1,121,366 times
Reputation: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Your lies are irrelevant? How convenient for you.

Settle down there sonny boy. I don't lie. Bingham was chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14 Amendment who is not subject is a "naturalized citizen," or just "a citizen," as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

To further understand why this is HistorianDude, look at the first clause very carefully. Again......very carefully.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The words "born or naturalized" are joined with the conjunction "or," and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not "a natural born citizen" as stated in the Article 2 Section 1 clause strictly for the presidency and completely separate from the 14th Amendment. If you need anything else for me to educate you on......please ask. Now........I am off to lunch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,659,413 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
Settle down there sonny boy. I don't lie. Bingham was chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.
Again, Bingham had exactly nothing to do with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. To call him the "chief architect" of something he had nothing to do with is a lie.

And again, you are not quoting from the debate on that Amendment, but debate ion a completely different law... a mere statute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2013, 11:00 AM
 
1,597 posts, read 979,412 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
In the United States, the right of national citizenship is defined by federal law; which legislative authority, under the Constitution, resides in Congress. In the 1950's, the Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. §1401, et seq. defining nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. These provisions, some of which apply retroactively, govern a person’s status as a natural born citizen; which federal statutes supercede prior case law (including decisions of the Supreme Court) on the subject of citizenship to the extent inconsistent with the Congressional legislation. Under this law, both Barack Obama and John McCain were eligible to be President of the United States. NB: Prior to the enactment of § 1403(a) of title 8 of the United State Code in 1952, Senator McCain would not have been deemed a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President. See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63 (2008).
Citizen!

Not Natural Born Citizen Under II Section I.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2013, 11:04 AM
 
1,597 posts, read 979,412 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
Old Soldier: The rights of citizenship - as are all rights - are defined by law. That's the meaning of the Constitution - we are a nation of laws and not men. For example, the Second Amendment does not provide any rights; and whatever rights that are secured by the Second Amendment, they are nevertheless subject to law. This fundamental principle - the primacy of the rule of law - is the one thing that most Americans don't understand.
The Second Amendment prohibits Statutory Infringements because the Constitution is the law of the land.

Statutes are "colorful".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2013, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Stasis
15,837 posts, read 10,043,104 times
Reputation: 8548
It must be Inauguration Day. The birthers are in full froth mode.
Congratulations on your second term Mr President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top