Originally Posted by Eddies66 (Post 620786)

The constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning.

Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.

Go peddle birther BS somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone (Post 620801)

You know what it means and why the writers put it in there .

So then why are you quoting Wong Kim Ark, when it's a 14th amendment case?

Let me bottom line this and end this theme you hate so much .
Anchor babies are not Natural Born Citizens and can't be President.

Oh wait...Define "birther" for your fans here.

Originally Posted by Eddies66 (Post 620811)

120 plus eligibility lawsuits from the 2008, 2012, and 2016 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections, which they didn't. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government. Until that time Mark all you have is opinion that is not based on FACT but on CONSPIRACY THEORY. These theorist i.e. Apaio, Zullo and the ever infamous dentist/lawyer Orly Taitz will again be cast aside by the facts and the law. You used the term "anchor babies", neither Congress nor the President have signed anything addressing this issue, no law, no legal basis to challenge one's citizenship. Birther = Conspiracy theorist


One of the conspiracy theorist finest moments:


[url]https://

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone (Post 620827)

How many time are you going to be wrong here?

O'Donnell? Talk about crackpots...A new low. I believe she pointed out that BO had a Ct. SSN...That's not theory ..THAT IS FACT

Arpaio and Zullo's four year investigation on three continents PROVED that BO's BC was a composite of his , and 17 items from Johanna A'nees BC, lifted and pasted on his. Proven!.. Not mathematically possible any other way.. This was illustrated by a certified Democrat court document examiner. BO's paper were dirty, which is all I ever said, 12 years ago. Why? Don't know..Don't care
I know this shatters your world view. Just because corrupt Washington establishment did nothing ...these are still the facts, jack. Would you expect corrupt Comey to look at it? You know the answer.
Give it up...In the end , all you have is Google , O'Donnell, and stupid names to deflect from the truth.

Originally Posted by Eddies66 (Post 620834)

And all you have is “hear-say” and you know how that works in a court of law.

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone (Post 620836)

Not hear -say. It's called well documented evidence.
All one needs is the courage to look at it with an open mind...That leaves you out.

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone (Post 620927)

I see Fox is up to their old tricks again...covering up for non- Natural Born Citizens again, just like they did for Obame...Nowhere in their front page piece this AM, do they mention Natural Born Citizen, which is the crux of the matter



SEC. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427]
(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

So it’s evident Harris’s parents weren’t U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. Thus she is ineligible to the offices of president and vice-president.

For both, the Constitution says one must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, a deliberately higher standard than simple citizenship.
The Court first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth, by Bingham, Ramsey and in Vattel, to be a natural born citizen one needs to be born on US soil to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.

Remember, if it takes an act of Congress as the 14th clearly is, for one to be a citizen, then they are a naturalized citizen.

Originally Posted by Eddies66 (Post 620938)

Not a good case to prove your point...here the rest of the story.


—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone (Post 620943)

Herefore Minor was a NBC...KH is not.

Originally Posted by Eddies66 (Post 620947)

Did you even read the whole case, even if Minor was born on US soil she is still a "natural born citizen". The Court compared both circumstances...quit reading what you want that fits your agenda and hell with the rest. Do you have a clue what "critical thinking" is? Of the soil, Mark, of the soil.

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone (Post 620982)

Source: http://www.aulawreview.org/natural-born-citizen/


There are two leading views of the original meaning of the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility. The first, espoused most recently by Professors Einer Elhauge and Mary Brigid McManamon, is that a natural born citizen who is eligible to be President is any person born within the United States, unless the person is the child of a foreign ambassador or enemy soldier.[7] By the same token, any person born outside of the United States to a U.S. ambassador or to a U.S. soldier in a hostile army would also be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.[8] The idea that membership in a polity is determined principally by birthplace is known by the Latinism jus soli—the “law of soil.”[9] Proponents of this view assert that jus soli was the common law of England as to who was a “natural born subject,” and that the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” requirement for presidential eligibility adopted the same English meaning.[10]

This viewpoint is wrong on both counts: jus soli was not the exclusive rule at English common law, and the English common law of natural born subjectship was not the exclusive source of the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. “Common law” in this context means the evolving customary law of England as reflected not only in judicial decisions, but also in landmark statutes. Further, early Americans also consulted treatises summarizing English law, most importantly William Blackstone’s Commentaries.[11]

First, jus soli may have been the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law before the Norman conquest of 1066, but it was not the sole principle of natural born subjectship at English common law when the U.S. Constitution was adopted centuries later. As historian James Kettner put it, “English jurists had no conscious attachment to the jus soli . . . . Ancestry could also determine who was a ‘natural-born subject.’”[12] In fact, starting in 1350, Parliament passed statutes bestowing subject status upon the foreign-born children of English subjects, thereby invoking the other great Western natural law birthright principle, jus sanguinis—the “law of blood” or parentage.[13] Jus sanguinis was the Roman rule of citizenship, and it was long dominant on the European continent with its shifting borders and overlapping allegiances.[14] But, jus sanguinis penetrated England and then Great Britain, especially in its eighteenth-century mercantilist phase, by which time Parliament had long extended “natural born” status to the foreign-born children of British subjects in government service and of British fathers generally.[15] Some of the most settled of these statutes, by virtue of their ancient and uncontroversial status, had become part of the common law tradition, not departures from it. However, descent by parentage had a gender skew under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.[16]

Second, although English common law was the principal source of U.S. constitutional law, it was not the only source. The common law was the taproot of U.S. constitutional provisions with an English pedigree like habeas corpus and the criminal and civil jury trial rights, but early Americans did not reflexively adopt the British law of natural born subjects in defining who was a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. The British Empire had “subjects” whose allegiance to the Crown was viewed as analogous to a child’s obeisance to a parent, a bond the Americans had fought to escape.[17] “Citizens” of the American republic, by contrast, were seen as bound by explicit or implicit consent to a society of equals, analogous to a social contract.[18] The ramifications of this political-theory distinction between subject and citizen for “natural born” status are underappreciated. The concept of citizenship that Americans embraced attributed greater independence and agency to individuals to pass on their political allegiance, by contrast to subjectship which presumed that allegiance was solely a function of birth within the sovereign’s domains.

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone (Post 621027)

Eddie, I agree to one thing you said. NBC has not been adjudicated specifically, through the Supreme Court
Therefore it's pointless for us to debated here. You've got news and TV people throwing out terms that don't have clue what they're talking about., then stating it as fact. It now becomes a matter of opinion what the forefathers and writers meant by NBC.

I believe they had a higher standard ,after the Revolutionary War, than having a foreign entity to be able to plop down a kid on US soil, and then ,after 35 years , that kid could be POTUS. You and many other , apparently , do not.
We are going to have to wait and watch until someone with standing, sees this issue through the courts.
Last words? (maybe)