Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
We have exactly that in Title 8 of the US Code, as you have been told many times, idiot. And we do not have "classes" of citizens. There are naturalized citizens and there are natural-born citizens such as Sen. Rubio. That's it.
If the law is clear why the debate? If the Congress will not pass a law leaving no doubt as to the Constitutional requirements being met, there is not much anyone can do at this point but raise doubts. Seems the Court does not want to touch this baby. So who profits by leaving the doubt?
No. Wong Kim Ark was a flawed case. It was never affirmed that Wong was a natural born Citizen but rather a Citizen.Yes all natural born Citizens are citizens by birth but not all Citizens born here are natural born Citizens. Throughout U.S. history, whenever the Supreme Court referred to a person as a "natural born citizen", the person was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents
That's simply not so.
The very fact that some of the Founders, Framers and later jurists didn't agree with each other is evidence that it was not as clear cut as you claim.
The law vs. isolated cases:
The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing,[35] on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[36]
The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)[37], which similarly held that the child born here of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase "natural born".[38]
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
We have exactly that in Title 8 of the US Code, as you have been told many times, idiot. And we do not have "classes" of citizens. There are naturalized citizens and there are natural-born citizens such as Sen. Rubio. That's it.
No you moron. The Supreme Court case ruling in Minor v Happerset in 1875 preceded Title 8 and the case is precedent meaning there are different classes of citizens as it states. Therefore Title 8 doesn't define natural born Citizen like I said.
No. Wong Kim Ark was a flawed case. It was never affirmed that Wong was a natural born Citizen but rather a Citizen.That's simply not so.
The very fact that some of the Founders, Framers and later jurists didn't agree with each other is evidence that it was not as clear cut as you claim.
The law vs. isolated cases:
The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing,[35] on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[36]
The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)[37], which similarly held that the child born here of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase "natural born".[38]
References, please.
All the case law I've found has only referred to citizens as people who are born in this country, and without reference to where the parents were born with the exception of foreign invaders and those here under the auspices of a foreign government.
In every SCOTUS ruling I've read, the justices have favored jus soli over jus sanguinis. Lower courts have pretty much been in step with them.
Even if the framer of the 14th amendment DID intend jus sanguinis along with jus soli, he didn't write it that way, and it wasn't ratified that way.
Sure. Examples are Perkins v. Elg and Kwock Jan Fat v. White.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court defined two classes of children. Each member of the first class was "born in a country of parents who were its citizens". All other native-born children belonged to the second class:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874).
The Court used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to members of the first class. The Court expressed doubts as to whether members of the second class were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) is a voter rights and discrimination based on sex issue and had no bearing on citizenship status except that it was used as an argument as to her legal status. The passage you quoted was later held to have been said "in passing" (cf: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) and was excluded as a justification for deciding in favor of jus sanguinis.
Your references don't hold up.
No. Wong Kim Ark was a flawed case. It was never affirmed that Wong was a natural born Citizen but rather a Citizen.The law vs. isolated cases:
The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing,[35] on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[36]
The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)[37], which similarly held that the child born here of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase "natural born".[38]
Everything is "flawed" or "misleading" if it gets in the way of your fantasy of legal insight. You need professional help.
You are clearly out of your league here. The principal framer of the 14th Amendment, explained that, in order to be a "natural born citizen", you must meet two requirements at birth.We have exactly that in Title 8 of the US Code, as you have been told many times, idiot. And we do not have "classes" of citizens. There are naturalized citizens and there are natural-born citizens such as Sen. Rubio. That's it.
No you moron. The Supreme Court case ruling in Minor v Happerset in 1875 preceded Title 8 and the case is precedent meaning there are different classes of citizens as it states. Therefore Title 8 doesn't define natural born Citizen like I said.
Anyone not suffering from your particular mental distress can see for themselves that Title 8 EXACTLY addresses the conditions under which a person may be considered a natural born US citizen. You are so far gone that you can't realize that the word "preceded" undermines what you thought you were saying above. Explaining it to you would clearly be a waste of time, as you have proven an inability to learn anything.
You are mentally ill. Everything has been explained for you many times now. You ignore reality because you want so badly to believe you have some special legal insight into the matter. You don't. You are simply wrong. You will be not 1% less wrong if you continue to repeat your nonsense and ignore what has been explained to you.
You are clearly out of your league here.No you moron. The Supreme Court case ruling in Minor v Happerset in 1875 preceded Title 8 and the case is precedent meaning there are different classes of citizens as it states. Therefore Title 8 doesn't define natural born Citizen like I said.
Anyone not suffering from your particular mental distress can see for themselves that Title 8 EXACTLY addresses the conditions under which a person may be considered a natural born US citizen. You are so far gone that you can't realize that the word "preceded" undermines what you thought you were saying above. Explaining it to you would clearly be a waste of time, as you have proven an inability to learn anything.
The person themselves must be a natural born US citizen. Both Rubio and Obama are national born, US citizens, but that doesn't stop the birther idiots to keep trolling with their "Obama is a kenyan" crap. You can also bet the birther brigade would be in full force after Rubio as well for being a product of illegals if he had more light on him, say if he became the VP nom.
You are mentally ill. Everything has been explained for you many times now. You ignore reality because you want so badly to believe you have some special legal insight into the matter. You don't. You are simply wrong. You will be not 1% less wrong if you continue to repeat your nonsense and ignore what has been explained to you.
You have not cited not one Supreme Court case law to back your assertions up. Not one.
You are mentally ill. Everything has been explained for you many times now. You ignore reality because you want so badly to believe you have some special legal insight into the matter. You don't. You are simply wrong. You will be not 1% less wrong if you continue to repeat your nonsense and ignore what has been explained to you.
You have not cited not one Supreme Court case law to back your assertions up. Not one.
That statement alone proves you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. .
You have not cited not one Supreme Court case law to back your assertions up. Not one.
That statement alone proves you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. .
Oh yes I do. You can't back anything up. You have been unable to locate the term 'natural born Citizen' within the text of the 14th Amendment. You have failed to provide evidence of what a natural born Citizen is that was the intent of the framers.
In other words, the US government would consider this young Steinkauler a "natural born citizen" of the type mentioned in the constitution's 14th amendment.In 1875, U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was presented with a query from the Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. A young man, surnamed Steinkauler (his first name was never mentioned), had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen. When he was four years old, his father returned to Germany with him and both had stayed there ever since. The father has relinquished his American citizenship. Now the young man is 20 years old and about to be drafted into the German army. What is this young man's situation as a native-born American citizen? After studying the relevant legal authorities, Pierrepont wrote:
Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. .... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.
