You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] SuckaFree ago  (edited ago)

So, there seems to be some confusion. Here's the rules:

"be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;

be at least 35 years old;

be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years."

And here's the definition on "natural born citizen:

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008, 2012, and 2016 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government."

Pulled from Wikipedia, and I verified it looking at the Constitution.

Those that said I need to do some research need to do some of your own.

Edit: And since this is a matter of Congress, don't expect any of this to change anytime soon.

Edit #2: Here's the info you knuckleheads have misinterpreted as law. It goes back to '12, and earlier really, but clearly states what an Appellate Court's position is. And since it hasn't been argued before the SCOTUS, it's the law of the Land:

"In a 2012 New York case, Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections,[4] the pro se plaintiff challenged Barack Obama's presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that "natural born citizen" required the president "to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents" (emphasis added). To this the Court responded, "Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. ... Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil". The opinion then listed Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover."

So, see? Obama wasn't the only President with this question hanging over his head. And he won't be the last, either.

[–] JohnQ-Arkenstone ago 

International Lawyer and Law Professor, Emer DeVattel invented the LEGAL term NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN and defined it 262 years ago as a person born of TWO CITIZENS of that nation.