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.
That's a technicality because you can define "Canadian" however you wish. But the requirement to be president requires one to be an American citizen. See post 4 for the law on the matter.
Incorrect. The Constitutional requirement to be president requires one to be a "naturalborn citizen."
Note that the requirement isnot just a "born citizen."
The answer to that question doesn't matter. What mattes is the Constitution does not define "Natural Born" and therefore it was up to Congress to do so and they did through United States Code.
Post it. Which U.S. Code defines "natural born citizen?"
You posted a website describing citizenship. The Constitutional requirement for POTUS is "natural born citizen," not just "citizen."
From my link
"Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example."
"Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example."
Feel free to provide another.
IC Is a prolific birther. He'll use Vattel as his reason.
Which may lay at the heart of your problem understanding the Constitution.
The Constitution was not written as a statute after 1970.
For god's sake what on earth is that suppose to mean?
Again, what the hell are you going on about. I asked you a set of simple questions, "where is natural born defined in the Constitution and why does the Congress not have to the power to construct that definition under the Necessary and Proper Clause?
Look, the Congress has been defining for the purposes of naturalization who is and who isn't a natural born citizen since 1790.
“An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization†(March 26, 1790).
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
You're actually citing Maskell's Congressional Research Service report in which Maskell LIED, MISREPRESENTED the truth, and INTENTIONALLY MISQUOTED the U.S. Supreme Court?!?
Bad form, wrecking ball. How much of a fool are you?
Here's what Maskell wrote in that November 2011 report:
Quote:
"In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “it is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen....”
But here's what SCOTUS actually said in that case:
Quote:
"It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country."
I've posted links to both. There are significant differences in what Maskell wrote and what were SCOTUS's actual words: "Physically in" is nowhere near the same thing as "permanently domiciled in." They simply are NOT interchangeable. Neither is "natural born citizen" and "citizen." If those were the same, Constitutional eligibility would only require citizenship." It does not. It requires natural born citizenship.
Maskell deliberately misrepresented SCOTUS by changing the words to try to prove his point. A such, his "report" is fatally flawed and has no credibility.
I didn't read the whole thing, but I'm sure it is quite interesting in a dry sort of way.
However, the "natural born citizen" requirement is a provision of the Constitution. Changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment. An "Act of Congress" just won't do the job.
In fact, the constitution is very clear: A "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". Since all those who were Citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can safely be assumed to be DEAD, and it is doubtful that a dead person can be elected or sworn in, it would appear that "Natural Born Citizen", over the age of 35, and who has resided in the U.S. for 14 years, is the only person that can be President of the United States.
However, since the government is over 90% lawyers, the law says what THEY tell us it says!
You're actually citing Maskell's Congressional Research Service report....
yep.
Quote:
Maskell deliberately misrepresented SCOTUS by changing the words to try to prove his point. A such, his "report" is fatally flawed and has no credibility.
then bring it to the attention of your congressional representative. please let me know what the response is.
i'll wait.
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.
in which Maskell LIED, MISREPRESENTED the truth, and INTENTIONALLY MISQUOTED the U.S. Supreme Court?!? 
