I'm always amazed at the incorrect information posted about Camel-Toe/Heels-Up and eligibility for elected office.
"The phrase "natural-born citizen" appears in the U.S. Constitution. ... 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".
While I loathe and detest democrats and liberals, the law is the law unless Patriots change it.
You're wrong, utterly wrong, and there's gonna be no bending it till you're right.
She wasn't subject to US jurisdiction. She was subject to the jurisdiction of her parents, who were subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from.
Nope THAT is the wrong interpretation of the law, which was created for former slaves during Reconstruction. The SCOTUS ahas gotten it wrong many times...
It’s been years since I dug into this but I remember during the Obama controversy, an earlier version of Blacks Law Dictionary spelled it out clearly. Of course they revised the definition of natural born citizen after Obama’s questionable origin story, but it was always clear as day what they meant by it. While the constitution in and of itself is brief, the larger body of Common Law is not. It clearly distinguishes the difference between natural born (2 parents, no foreign allegiances), native born (born on US soil), and naturalized (immigrated legally). There might have been one more category I’m forgetting but you get the idea - Common Law predates the US Constitution and established the meanings of the words that appear in it. It seems vague to us in the 21st century but in the 1700’s, all these legal terms were well established.
I'm always amazed at the incorrect information posted about Camel-Toe/Heels-Up and eligibility for elected office.
"The phrase "natural-born citizen" appears in the U.S. Constitution. ... 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".
While I loathe and detest democrats and liberals, the law is the law unless Patriots change it.
You're wrong, utterly wrong, and there's gonna be no bending it till you're right.
She wasn't subject to US jurisdiction. She was subject to the jurisdiction of her parents, who were subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from.
How can she be subject to the jurisdiction of the us if her parents are not?
There is no magic dirt clause. Interpreting that way is willfully ignorant.
Nope THAT is the wrong interpretation of the law, which was created for former slaves during Reconstruction. The SCOTUS ahas gotten it wrong many times...
Yup
BUT... Trump had prbly 90 - 100 MILLION votes so...
This is true.
It’s been years since I dug into this but I remember during the Obama controversy, an earlier version of Blacks Law Dictionary spelled it out clearly. Of course they revised the definition of natural born citizen after Obama’s questionable origin story, but it was always clear as day what they meant by it. While the constitution in and of itself is brief, the larger body of Common Law is not. It clearly distinguishes the difference between natural born (2 parents, no foreign allegiances), native born (born on US soil), and naturalized (immigrated legally). There might have been one more category I’m forgetting but you get the idea - Common Law predates the US Constitution and established the meanings of the words that appear in it. It seems vague to us in the 21st century but in the 1700’s, all these legal terms were well established.
Demon-spawning doesn't count as "natural-born", does it?