Okay, I went ahead and did some research into this. It's somewhat ambiguous and will likely need to be an issue taken to the Supreme Court. They need to definitely rule on if a "Naturally Born Citizen" includes those in this particular situation where they would be born with dual citizenship.
The reason WHY the framers made the requirement a "NATURAL BORN Citizen," and not merely a "citizen" was because the entire POINT was that Prez should have no dual allegiance.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual nationality is “a status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he [sic] asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other” (see Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 [1952] ).
The fact that the SC recognizes the validity of dual citizenship implies that the SC also thinks that dual citizenship does not specifically disqualify a natural born US citizen from being President.
A large number of US lawmakers are dual-citizens (US and Israel) so good luck trying to get anywhere with an argument that Kamala's dual parents disqualify her.
A large number of government agencies are already making their own law interpretations so good luck trying to get anywhere with an argument that a government agency cant do that.
When we all have recently heard of the chevron doctrine being destroyed by the supreme court.
And just like the Chevron Doctrine scenario, this issue can be ruled on by the SC, and in the end remove all who violate the constitution in this regard. (if ruled unconstitutional)
A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life. 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.
Looks like this is still very much in dispute. The arguments that a natural born citizen is one who is born of parents who are citizens, regardless of where they were born, and that simply being born in the US doesn't qualify one as being a "natural born" citizen, only in being a citizen.
This particular explanation makes the most sense to me, BUT I think it's noteworthy that there is wide dispute and/or disparity in views on the topic.
Okay, I went ahead and did some research into this. It's somewhat ambiguous and will likely need to be an issue taken to the Supreme Court. They need to definitely rule on if a "Naturally Born Citizen" includes those in this particular situation where they would be born with dual citizenship.
The reason WHY the framers made the requirement a "NATURAL BORN Citizen," and not merely a "citizen" was because the entire POINT was that Prez should have no dual allegiance.
THANK YOU!!!! Tired of saying this.
Afaik, it was to protect the country from foreign influence, rather than more narrowly to ensure that potus has 'no dual allegiances'.
The Supreme Court appears to agree:
https://jp.usembassy.gov/services/dual-nationality/
The fact that the SC recognizes the validity of dual citizenship implies that the SC also thinks that dual citizenship does not specifically disqualify a natural born US citizen from being President.
A large number of US lawmakers are dual-citizens (US and Israel) so good luck trying to get anywhere with an argument that Kamala's dual parents disqualify her.
There are different requirements for being president vs being a congress person or governor.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
Thank you for this insight.
Looks like this is still very much in dispute. The arguments that a natural born citizen is one who is born of parents who are citizens, regardless of where they were born, and that simply being born in the US doesn't qualify one as being a "natural born" citizen, only in being a citizen.
This particular explanation makes the most sense to me, BUT I think it's noteworthy that there is wide dispute and/or disparity in views on the topic.
This thread has been an education process for me.
Same