FFS it has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1898. Literally. She is eligible. If you were born in the US, you are a naturally born citizen. Period. The citizenship of your parents is 100% irrelevant. Anyone who pursues this is wasting all of our time.
If only I had linked the decision in the comment that you replied to. Oh wait, I did.
But just in case you forgot how to click a link - The decision was US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Also Minor vs Happersett does not define citizenship. It only states that citizenship does not guarantee the right to vote. So it is irrelevant here.
The Wong Kim Ark case specifically defines citizenship regarding people born inside US borders. The opinion of the majority Justice Horace Gray in part states "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"
You cannot get much more explicit than that. We are wasting our efforts trying to pull this shit. She is unfortunately, eligible to be VP and/or President.
Here you go. . .these paragraphs are in the latter part of the decision but clearly define NBC. . .precedent by unanimous decision: She is not eligible. She might be a citizen; but not a natural born citiizen.
"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
Page 88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." Source = Justia
Wish some lawyer would take this up and go to court. Then the Supreme Court.
Unless it'd have no standing /s
FFS it has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1898. Literally. She is eligible. If you were born in the US, you are a naturally born citizen. Period. The citizenship of your parents is 100% irrelevant. Anyone who pursues this is wasting all of our time.
Really, what decision? It would be contradiction of Minor vs Happpersett (1875). Cite it; I’ll read it. Or not.
If only I had linked the decision in the comment that you replied to. Oh wait, I did.
But just in case you forgot how to click a link - The decision was US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Also Minor vs Happersett does not define citizenship. It only states that citizenship does not guarantee the right to vote. So it is irrelevant here.
The Wong Kim Ark case specifically defines citizenship regarding people born inside US borders. The opinion of the majority Justice Horace Gray in part states "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"
You cannot get much more explicit than that. We are wasting our efforts trying to pull this shit. She is unfortunately, eligible to be VP and/or President.
Here you go. . .these paragraphs are in the latter part of the decision but clearly define NBC. . .precedent by unanimous decision: She is not eligible. She might be a citizen; but not a natural born citiizen.
"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 Page 88 U. S. 168 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." Source = Justia
But where is that applied to the term "natural born citizen"? It seems like it only addresses citizenship in general...