paddymcdougall
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,032
- Reaction score
- 1,687
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I highly doubt the SCOTUS would see it that way if it became an issue. Especially if the person was a son or daughter of a military service member born overseas. It simply would not be fair. The simple fact is that part of the Constitution was meant to limit the ability of an adult to come over as a citizen of another country and become our President after only being a citizen for a few years or having been raised as a citizen of another country.
It didn't need clarification. The Founders knew what it meant.
As you were told, they were already addressed.
And you were directed to the posts that would clarify your feigned ignorance of my position.
Great. So where is this question you asked and the answer the person gave?Here's the thread I started years ago on the issue of "natural-born -vs- U.S. citizen".
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...en-vs-u-s-citizen-argument-both-one-same.html
Unfortunately your belief is wrong.Fair enough. However, I believe our legal system has determined through legal precedent that a "natural-born U.S. citizen" is, in fact, defined as a person who is born in the U.S. or one of its outlying territories regardless of where the individual's parents were born.
No they did not.Such was the ruling in this U.S. Appeals Court case, SoS Achesen -vs- Maenza (1953), where a child born in the U.S. to two Italian born parents who retained his U.S. "natural-born" citizenship status based: 1) on the place of his birth (Cleveland, OH) and, 2) the fact that he did not renounce his U.S. citizenship despite being "forced" to serve in the Italian Army. Notice this case is similar to U.S. -vs- Wong Kim Ark.
In both case, the Courts ruled that, ""All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."
Yes they do.I said enough times now that they don't. So just answer the ****ing question. Was McCain qualified or not?
:dohYou may not have noticed, but we have changed a lot of things since "the founders". Their views are not sacrosanct.
I see you don't get it, and take sides as well.ROFL. in the amount of time you've spent typing that we misunderstood you and we should go look at your posts in this very long thread (without telling us which posts) you could have just restated -in summary - the answer to the question.
McCain - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born
Cruz - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born
Obama - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born
They all had at least one parent who was a born and bred US citizen, so that's not a disqualifier
I see you don't get it, and take sides as well.
He wasted his time by not reading what was already provided. His not doing that is the problem.
Asking me to provide it again is a waste of time. And I am not going to do it.
But if you want to help him out, be my guest.
Quote what I said in regards to each of those folks.
All you will be doing is wasting your time for a person who obviously didn't care to read the thread on their own.
Or you could save yourself some time and tell him to read the thread.
Up to you. :shrug:
OR - I could just ignore you. I like that option! You are the one wasting time. If you wanted to present your argument, you would restate in a way that people actually understood, rather than just being upset that we didn't understand you in the first place. You obviously don't care if we understand you; so I don't care either
Yes they do.
Ok **** it, I'm done with you and your nonsense. Either you don't know, or are hiding something.
That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution requires one be a Naturally born citizen.
That phase has a specific meaning requiring birth to a citizen parent, on US soil, and not being born owing allegiance to another country.
That meaning hasn't changed.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court has never heard the issue so folks like Obama and possibly Cruz can get away with it.
Oh look. Someone quoted post 9 that I directed another person to read. Go figure.He was born a US citizen, he didn't immigrate here, apply for citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to become a citizen, he was naturally born a citizen.That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution requires one be a Naturally born citizen.
That phase has a specific meaning requiring birth to a citizen parent, on US soil, and not being born owing allegiance to another country.
That meaning hasn't changed.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court has never heard the issue so folks like Obama and possibly Cruz can get away with it.
Great. So where is this question you asked and the answer the person gave?
No they did not.
Neither Court made such a ruling.
The Court in Wong only ruled he was a citizen.
I reaching this conclusion, wouldn't the court first have to determine whether or not Maenza was, in fact, a U.S. citizen and how said citizenship came to be? This is what the court said on that matter:The court in Maenza made no such ruling in regards to the type of citizen he was.
It ruled he didn't loose his citizenship through involuntary servitude in another countries service.
There must be more than inference, hypothesis or surmise before a natural-born citizen of the United States can be stripped of his rights and privileges of citizenship and be adjudicated an expatriate.
Where you get the idea that it somehow ruled he was a natural born citizen is beyond me. Maybe you do not understand the difference between dicta and a ruling. :shrug:
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
*Anyone born inside the United States *
*Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
*Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
*Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
*Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
*A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
** There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
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.
So if someone casually called you an irishman you probably wouldn't take it as a negative.I know, it's not like she meant he was born there.
I've said (prior to that) many times that Ireland is my homeland and I've never been there.
Good thing I previewed before posting.edit: oh hey there 22 pages.
(BTW, I don't recall ever getting a straight answer to my question(s).)Your questions?In any case, I go back to a few old questions I once asked when this natural-born -vs- citizen issue first came up w/Pres. Obama:
If there is a difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen, what benefits are conferred one over the other?
Is the only difference that being a natural-born citizen can hold the office of PUTUS and a citizen cannot?
And seeing that the term "natural-born" was only once a settled matter in a 1790 law that has long been repealed and replaced by other versions of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization law, does "natural-born" even still apply today?
And if not, should Art. 2 of the U.S. Constitution be amended?
Who did you ask this question of, and what was the answer?
No.It's about 2/3 the way down in the very first post to the thread. Had you read it you'd have known that.Great. So where is this question you asked and the answer the person gave?
*sigh*:dohWhere you get the idea that it somehow ruled he was a natural born citizen is beyond me. Maybe you do not understand the difference between dicta and a ruling. :shrug:
This is why I didn't want to have this discussion again. Folks like you come in and stick firmly to your definition of what a "natural-born citizen" is and treat such as if it is distinct from being called a "citizen".
Nowhere in that case did they determine Wong to be a natural born citizen. Nowhere did they define him as a natural born citizen.The court first defined his citizenship status showing that he was "natural(ly)-born" in America and that he was "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law. They then upheld his citizenship status.
Oh dear G_d, no!I reaching this conclusion, wouldn't the court first have to determine whether or not Maenza was, in fact, a U.S. citizen and how said citizenship came to be?The court in Maenza made no such ruling in regards to the type of citizen he was.
It ruled he didn't loose his citizenship through involuntary servitude in another countries service.
That is mere dicta. It is not a ruling. It is not a holding. It is not authoritative.This is what the court said on that matter:
There must be more than inference, hypothesis or surmise before a natural-born citizen of the United States can be stripped of his rights and privileges of citizenship and be adjudicated an expatriate.
Therefore nothing. The court made no such determination. The court acknowledged that he was a citizen under the 14th. And ruled he did not lose that citizenship. That is all.Therefore, before the court could rule on whether or not Maenza had given up his citizenship status, they had to first determine what type of "citizen" he was - natural-born or naturalized. The court determined that Maenza was, in fact, a "natural-born citizen" and that he did not renounce his U.S. citizenship.
Wrong all the way around. Neither was declared a natural born citizen.The only distinction is if you are naturalized U.S. citizen, i.e., someone who was not a U.S. citizen at birth but applied for U.S. citizenship. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger if you will. It's why he and people like him who applied for U.S. citizenship can never be President. Everyone else who was born here and are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. laws are natural-born U.S. citizens. Ultimately, there was nothing that either Wong Kim Art or Appellee Rosario Maenza had do anything in order to be declared "natural-born U.S. citizens" except be born here.
:doh That isn't the truth.Truth is, in America being called a "citizen" is synonymous for "natural-born" or "native-born". All this means is "if you are born in the United States you are a 'natural-born' citizen."
And? This is irrelevant and was already trounced in the other thread you participated in.Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
*Anyone born inside the United States *
*Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
*Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
*Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
*Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
*A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
** There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
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.
So if someone casually called you an irishman you probably wouldn't take it as a negative.
My clan's tartan is downright ugly :lol:No, but I would correct them.
Actually, maybe I wouldnt. No one's ever called me an Irishman...possibly for obvious reasons.
But I'll say, "oh that's the Irish in me" when I do something rather stereotypical of the Irish. Same with Austrian or German or British.
And I commonly say that I 'dislike the food of my people' (anglo and German/Austrian), discrediting it as boring. LOL
My clan's tartan is downright ugly :lol:
It's a very stupid observation. "African Americans" almost all have white blood from their abuse when they were slaves. Few have only African blood.
But the ignorant like to bring it up as if it's relevant. Blacks in this country have had little recourse but to identify with their visible attribute, almost as a defense mechanism...since the minute racist whites saw them THEY immediately declared them 'black', no matter how dark or light.
I find that and the old 'one drop' laws particularly offensive. Traces back to a MASH episode during my childhood I think, when they discussed black people dying because they werent admitted to 'white only' hospitals and were, in that case, not given blood transfusions to save their lives.
Hence the old expression, a "compliment"....you are 'passin', meaning you could pass for white. It always made me sick to my stomach to hear it and read it after that as a kid...and adult.
/rant
About as much as I believe "african" americans are actually born in africa. What does Obama's birth place have to do with anything? I'm scottish/german and I wasn't born in scotland or germany. Please stop trying to derail the thread. We have a kenyan in office so it's no big deal if we elect a canadian. A canadian would actually be the better choice since 90% of the canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border anyway and are likely more atune to US politics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?