Kittens, I have had my eyeballs insulted yet again this evening. I came across the most ridiculous -shall we say- “interpretation” of the natural-born requirement in the Constitution that I have read in some time. But I do confess that I have not surfed for these things in awhile. This proves that being ever vigilant is more necessary now than ever.
This “thing” below, in part, explains why obots are so convinced that the president “meets” the eligibility requirements. They google and land on complete and utter falsehoods like this snip:
Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn’t have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.
Cobbled up by a complete lamebrain named :
Phaedra Trethan who is a freelance writer who also works as a copy editor for the Camden Courier-Post. She formerly worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer, where she wrote about books, religion, sports, music, films and restaurants.
Where did this genius get her definition? Directly from the Treason Queen, Nancy Pelosi prehaps? This is what the left is trying to have the Constitution amended to, but have so far failed. Msssssss. Phaedra T. seems to think it is a forgone conclusion.
This is deceptive and deceitful and she contradicts herself, as one must do if trying to make the claim that a child born of two US parents on US soil is the exact same class of citizen as a child simply born on US soil, or a child born in another county to two US citizen parents.
My take on this natural-born citizen issue, and the logic behind it, coupled with one of the supporting cases from the Supreme Court:
If there has ever been a SCOTUS ruling that “there can be no question that having two US parents, and born on US soil defines who is a natural born citizen”, then there can be no other condition that would also make you a natural born citizen. After all, there are very finite birth conditions. And doubtless, a child born to two US citizen parents on US soil is absolutely a natural-born citizen. There is no question – but there would be a question about any other type of birth circumstance, which in and of itself, demonstrates the fact that only one type of birth circumstance qualifies to be “natural-born”.
To define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”