Re: "To be NBC [natural born citizen] you must be born on the soil to parents who are citizens."
That would mean that Andrew Jackson was not a Natural Born Citizen because NEITHER of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.
Sure, he was born before the Constitution, but he still would not have been Natural Born, according to the two parent definition. He was a good president.
No. Natural Born Citizen status does not require two US parents. It simply requires birth in the USA. That is the original meaning of Natural Born, birth in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats, who are not eligible).
Black's Law Dictionary writes: "Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
And, the Wall Street Journal writes:
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
According to Title 8 of the U.S. Code, an exception exists to (as you say) "birth in the USA"--the child must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at the time of birth which Obama clearly was not according to the statement on his own campaign website that he was a British subject at birth.
You've created a red herring by starting off with Andrew Jackson. Wow. You think he was a good President, so screw the constitution.
As for that WSJ article by James Taranto...The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g)...and THE STATUTE DOES NOT USE THE WORDS “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
Sheer logic alone tells us that we should not have a President with divided loyalties. That is a recipe for disaster.
Unlike you, our Founding Fathers had some common sense.
Re: "To be NBC [natural born citizen] you must be born on the soil to parents who are citizens."
ReplyDeleteThat would mean that Andrew Jackson was not a Natural Born Citizen because NEITHER of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.
Sure, he was born before the Constitution, but he still would not have been Natural Born, according to the two parent definition. He was a good president.
No. Natural Born Citizen status does not require two US parents. It simply requires birth in the USA. That is the original meaning of Natural Born, birth in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats, who are not eligible).
Black's Law Dictionary writes: "Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
And, the Wall Street Journal writes:
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
According to Title 8 of the U.S. Code, an exception exists to (as you say) "birth in the USA"--the child must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at the time of birth which Obama clearly was not according to the statement on his own campaign website that he was a British subject at birth.
ReplyDeleteYou've created a red herring by starting off with Andrew Jackson. Wow. You think he was a good President, so screw the constitution.
As for that WSJ article by James Taranto...The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g)...and THE STATUTE DOES NOT USE THE WORDS “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
Sheer logic alone tells us that we should not have a President with divided loyalties. That is a recipe for disaster.
Unlike you, our Founding Fathers had some common sense.