Yet another election complication

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by WiseOne » Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:09 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:23 am
I think it is a pretty good bet that Harris isn't actually eligible to be President (and therefore VP). Her parents not only weren't citizens; they weren't even permanent residents. This has never yet been adjudicated in the Supreme Court, but I'm pretty sure the Republicans will sue to have it adjudicated if there is any indication that the Democrats have been able to steal the election.

So if Biden has to resign due to the Hunter scandal, and Harris isn't eligible, then any Biden electors will be free to vote for anyone they want even according to the strictest rules.
I'm confused....

Harris may be an "anchor baby" but if she was born on US soil, she is a natural-born US citizen regardless of her parents' status. This is something we all think needs to change, but if it does, it certainly won't be applied retroactively.

Also if Biden resigns or dies in office and for some reason Harris can't take over, then there won't be an election - it will go to the Speaker of the House. Which in all probability will still be Nancy Pelosi. Unless maybe you meant that if Biden resigns after he is elected but before taking the oath of office? Kinda doubt that will change anything.

Nice try tech....
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by vnatale » Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:32 am
WiseOne wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:09 am
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:23 am
I think it is a pretty good bet that Harris isn't actually eligible to be President (and therefore VP). Her parents not only weren't citizens; they weren't even permanent residents. This has never yet been adjudicated in the Supreme Court, but I'm pretty sure the Republicans will sue to have it adjudicated if there is any indication that the Democrats have been able to steal the election.

So if Biden has to resign due to the Hunter scandal, and Harris isn't eligible, then any Biden electors will be free to vote for anyone they want even according to the strictest rules.
I'm confused....

Harris may be an "anchor baby" but if she was born on US soil, she is a natural-born US citizen regardless of her parents' status. This is something we all think needs to change, but if it does, it certainly won't be applied retroactively.
It has never been adjudicated whether someone born on US soil to people who aren't permanent residents is a natural born citizen. That's what I was referring to.

See https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publicati ... rspectives for several perspectives on this question.

Reading what you originally wrote led me to discuss it via email with someone. The below was his response.

Vinny



She was born in Oakland, CA. I will admit that I haven’t checked lately, but the last time I checked that was in the United States.



The Constitution is absolutely clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of state wherein they reside.”



The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision is there to exclude those born in Indian territory and those born within the borders of the US but on foreign property. (remember, this was 1868 so people were born at home and foreign ambassadors would therefore have their children born in their embassies.)



The standard is clear that it is the individual that matters, not one’s parents.



Article II is also clear: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”



That clearly speaks to the person who would be president, not to the person’s parents.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Cortopassi » Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:00 am

As I said in another post, grasping at straws. Plastic, paper, metal, whatever.

Seems Vinny's friend's response is pretty clear.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:31 am

vnatale wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 am


The Constitution is absolutely clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of state wherein they reside.”


The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision is there to exclude those born in Indian territory and those born within the borders of the US but on foreign property. (remember, this was 1868 so people were born at home and foreign ambassadors would therefore have their children born in their embassies.)
That's your friend's opinion.
Is he a Supreme Court justice? Is he a constitutional expert?
I'm going to say the answer to both of those is "no".
I'm citing constitutional experts who disagree with him.
Of course you can believe whoever and whatever you want, but the opinion of an unnamed person with no known qualifications isn't very compelling.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:32 am

Cortopassi wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:00 am
As I said in another post, grasping at straws. Plastic, paper, metal, whatever.

Seems Vinny's friend's response is pretty clear.
Oh, it's clear all right.
That doesn't mean it's correct.

I could say "Harris is not eligible to be VP".
Is that clear? Yes.
Is it correct? That's a matter of opinion.
See the difference?
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by vnatale » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:04 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:31 am
vnatale wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 am


The Constitution is absolutely clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of state wherein they reside.”


The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision is there to exclude those born in Indian territory and those born within the borders of the US but on foreign property. (remember, this was 1868 so people were born at home and foreign ambassadors would therefore have their children born in their embassies.)
That's your friend's opinion.
Is he a Supreme Court justice? Is he a constitutional expert?
I'm going to say the answer to both of those is "no".
I'm citing constitutional experts who disagree with him.
Of course you can believe whoever and whatever you want, but the opinion of an unnamed person with no known qualifications isn't very compelling.
I will then add that he has a law degree from Rutgers and is an avid follower of all things legal.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by glennds » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:27 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 am


Article II is also clear: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”


I know this will be heresy to those who treat the Constitution as though it was handed to the founding fathers by Jesus Himself, but if it weren't so poorly drafted, it wouldn't be subject to so much bickering and controversy.

For example, the first sentence could be interpreted to literally say that anyone not born or naturalized at the time of Adoption is not eligible, therefore nobody is eligible to be President. I know, I know, that's absurd. But comma placement makes it less than totally clear.

However on a more serious note, and maybe to Libertarian666's point, none of the terms are defined.

So what is a natural born Citizen for purposes of this Article? Since terms are not defined, it's not truly clear.

What if natural born means born in the geographical US to one (or two) Citizen parents? Or what if natural born simply means born in the geographical US with no other conditions applied? And what if natural born for purposes of citizenship is different than natural born for purposes of eligibility for President?

When McCain ran, there was a little bit of noise as to whether being born on a foreign located US military base made you a natural born Citizen, but the question was never adjudicated, and of course there's a clear indication of how most people would like the question to be answered, but that's not the same thing as a legal adjudication.

George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico on a Mormon settlement where his parents had settled when they fled the US to escape prosecution for polygamy. He ran for President in 1968 and the question of his eligibility was only casually raised. Had he defeated Nixon in the primaries, maybe the question would have developed more legs.

If the question ever does get formally adjudicated at the SCOTUS level, I would not bet money one way or the other as to which way the decision will go. I think it will have more to do with politics and the political leaning of the Court at the time, more than clarity in the law or Constitution (back to the sacrilege of poor drafting). I suppose the question could also be resolved legislatively by Congress.

BTW, I agree that a decision that retroactively takes away citizenship would be a radical, unlikely development. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a decision on eligibility for the office of President which would not remove anyone's citizenship, only make them ineligible to be President. These are two different things.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:21 pm

glennds wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:27 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 am


Article II is also clear: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”


I know this will be heresy to those who treat the Constitution as though it was handed to the founding fathers by Jesus Himself, but if it weren't so poorly drafted, it wouldn't be subject to so much bickering and controversy.

For example, the first sentence could be interpreted to literally say that anyone not born or naturalized at the time of Adoption is not eligible, therefore nobody is eligible to be President. I know, I know, that's absurd. But comma placement makes it less than totally clear.

However on a more serious note, and maybe to Libertarian666's point, none of the terms are defined.

So what is a natural born Citizen for purposes of this Article? Since terms are not defined, it's not truly clear.

What if natural born means born in the geographical US to one (or two) Citizen parents? Or what if natural born simply means born in the geographical US with no other conditions applied? And what if natural born for purposes of citizenship is different than natural born for purposes of eligibility for President?

When McCain ran, there was a little bit of noise as to whether being born on a foreign located US military base made you a natural born Citizen, but the question was never adjudicated, and of course there's a clear indication of how most people would like the question to be answered, but that's not the same thing as a legal adjudication.

George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico on a Mormon settlement where his parents had settled when they fled the US to escape prosecution for polygamy. He ran for President in 1968 and the question of his eligibility was only casually raised. Had he defeated Nixon in the primaries, maybe the question would have developed more legs.

If the question ever does get formally adjudicated at the SCOTUS level, I would not bet money one way or the other as to which way the decision will go. I think it will have more to do with politics and the political leaning of the Court at the time, more than clarity in the law or Constitution (back to the sacrilege of poor drafting). I suppose the question could also be resolved legislatively by Congress.

BTW, I agree that a decision that retroactively takes away citizenship would be a radical, unlikely development. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a decision on eligibility for the office of President which would not remove anyone's citizenship, only make them ineligible to be President. These are two different things.
Yes, that's exactly my point: no one knows the answer to the question as to whether Harris is eligible because the term "natural born" has never been explicitly defined, and this particular situation has never come up before so there isn't even an implicit definition as the result of a court case.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by vnatale » Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:37 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:21 pm
glennds wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:27 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 am


Article II is also clear: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”


I know this will be heresy to those who treat the Constitution as though it was handed to the founding fathers by Jesus Himself, but if it weren't so poorly drafted, it wouldn't be subject to so much bickering and controversy.

For example, the first sentence could be interpreted to literally say that anyone not born or naturalized at the time of Adoption is not eligible, therefore nobody is eligible to be President. I know, I know, that's absurd. But comma placement makes it less than totally clear.

However on a more serious note, and maybe to Libertarian666's point, none of the terms are defined.

So what is a natural born Citizen for purposes of this Article? Since terms are not defined, it's not truly clear.

What if natural born means born in the geographical US to one (or two) Citizen parents? Or what if natural born simply means born in the geographical US with no other conditions applied? And what if natural born for purposes of citizenship is different than natural born for purposes of eligibility for President?

When McCain ran, there was a little bit of noise as to whether being born on a foreign located US military base made you a natural born Citizen, but the question was never adjudicated, and of course there's a clear indication of how most people would like the question to be answered, but that's not the same thing as a legal adjudication.

George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico on a Mormon settlement where his parents had settled when they fled the US to escape prosecution for polygamy. He ran for President in 1968 and the question of his eligibility was only casually raised. Had he defeated Nixon in the primaries, maybe the question would have developed more legs.

If the question ever does get formally adjudicated at the SCOTUS level, I would not bet money one way or the other as to which way the decision will go. I think it will have more to do with politics and the political leaning of the Court at the time, more than clarity in the law or Constitution (back to the sacrilege of poor drafting). I suppose the question could also be resolved legislatively by Congress.

BTW, I agree that a decision that retroactively takes away citizenship would be a radical, unlikely development. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a decision on eligibility for the office of President which would not remove anyone's citizenship, only make them ineligible to be President. These are two different things.
Yes, that's exactly my point: no one knows the answer to the question as to whether Harris is eligible because the term "natural born" has never been explicitly defined, and this particular situation has never come up before so there isn't even an implicit definition as the result of a court case.
If you want to continue to go down this path, where has "person" ever been explicitly defined? Almost all the references are to "he" with only a few to "president". Finally what is the meaning of the word "is"??!!!

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:44 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:37 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:21 pm
glennds wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:27 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 am


Article II is also clear: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”


I know this will be heresy to those who treat the Constitution as though it was handed to the founding fathers by Jesus Himself, but if it weren't so poorly drafted, it wouldn't be subject to so much bickering and controversy.

For example, the first sentence could be interpreted to literally say that anyone not born or naturalized at the time of Adoption is not eligible, therefore nobody is eligible to be President. I know, I know, that's absurd. But comma placement makes it less than totally clear.

However on a more serious note, and maybe to Libertarian666's point, none of the terms are defined.

So what is a natural born Citizen for purposes of this Article? Since terms are not defined, it's not truly clear.

What if natural born means born in the geographical US to one (or two) Citizen parents? Or what if natural born simply means born in the geographical US with no other conditions applied? And what if natural born for purposes of citizenship is different than natural born for purposes of eligibility for President?

When McCain ran, there was a little bit of noise as to whether being born on a foreign located US military base made you a natural born Citizen, but the question was never adjudicated, and of course there's a clear indication of how most people would like the question to be answered, but that's not the same thing as a legal adjudication.

George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico on a Mormon settlement where his parents had settled when they fled the US to escape prosecution for polygamy. He ran for President in 1968 and the question of his eligibility was only casually raised. Had he defeated Nixon in the primaries, maybe the question would have developed more legs.

If the question ever does get formally adjudicated at the SCOTUS level, I would not bet money one way or the other as to which way the decision will go. I think it will have more to do with politics and the political leaning of the Court at the time, more than clarity in the law or Constitution (back to the sacrilege of poor drafting). I suppose the question could also be resolved legislatively by Congress.

BTW, I agree that a decision that retroactively takes away citizenship would be a radical, unlikely development. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a decision on eligibility for the office of President which would not remove anyone's citizenship, only make them ineligible to be President. These are two different things.
Yes, that's exactly my point: no one knows the answer to the question as to whether Harris is eligible because the term "natural born" has never been explicitly defined, and this particular situation has never come up before so there isn't even an implicit definition as the result of a court case.
If you want to continue to go down this path, where has "person" ever been explicitly defined? Almost all the references are to "he" with only a few to "president". Finally what is the meaning of the word "is"??!!!

Vinny
"Person" is a term that predates the Constitution and its definition is and was well-known.
The same is not true of "natural born citizen", unless you can find such a definition. I haven't been able to, but that isn't definitive (no pun intended).
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by glennds » Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:41 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:37 pm



If you want to continue to go down this path, where has "person" ever been explicitly defined? Almost all the references are to "he" with only a few to "president". Finally what is the meaning of the word "is"??!!!

Vinny
Vinny I'm just saying there are technical arguments that could be made as to the definition of a "natural born Citizen" for purposes of eligibility for President under Article II. Amendment XIV Section 1 defines a citizen, but unfortunately the terminology is inconsistent with the eligibility terminology in Article II hence the argument.

Personally I think Harris is eligible and it would be a long shot of an argument that she's not.

But if there was an anti-immigrant sentiment in the country at the time, and a highly conservative SCOTUS, it is possible that there could be an adverse ruling. Again, this would not be re-defining what a citizen is, just defining eligibility for President.

For context, it's worthwhile to consider that of the 39 signatories to the Constitution, 7 were immigrants themselves. James Madison spoke and wrote of a vision for "great numbers" emigrating to the United States, so there is little evidence that there were xenophobic attitudes or an exclusionary bias at the time.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by glennds » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm

Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Libertarian666 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:52 pm

glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm
Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
What that article explains is that you don't have to be born in the US if one of your parents is a US citizen.
I didn't see anything in there about what happens if you are born in the US but neither of your parents is a US resident.
Did I miss that?
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by vnatale » Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:07 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:52 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm
Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
What that article explains is that you don't have to be born in the US if one of your parents is a US citizen.
I didn't see anything in there about what happens if you are born in the US but neither of your parents is a US resident.
Did I miss that?
Of course you didn’t miss it. No law professor writing in the Harvard Law Review is going to consider that to be a valid question. If you’re born in the US, you are a natural born citizen, it doesn’t matter about your parents.


It’s just like if someone publishes an article in the John Hopkins Journal of Medicine (or whatever formal title it has) about diagnosing children with a type of cancer, you’re not going to see anything about what to look for if neither parent ever heard of it

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by glennds » Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:35 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:52 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm
Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
What that article explains is that you don't have to be born in the US if one of your parents is a US citizen.
I didn't see anything in there about what happens if you are born in the US but neither of your parents is a US resident.
Did I miss that?
I read it that your question is answered in the second paragraph, namely "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

The rest of the discussion involves people born abroad to one US citizen which is why they use examples of Ted Cruz, John McCain, George Romney and even Barry Goldwater and they conclude that all of them would be considered natural born citizens despite foreign birthplaces.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:09 am

vnatale wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:07 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:52 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm
Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
What that article explains is that you don't have to be born in the US if one of your parents is a US citizen.
I didn't see anything in there about what happens if you are born in the US but neither of your parents is a US resident.
Did I miss that?
Of course you didn’t miss it. No law professor writing in the Harvard Law Review is going to consider that to be a valid question. If you’re born in the US, you are a natural born citizen, it doesn’t matter about your parents.
Really? What if you are born in the US as the child of two diplomats, neither of whom is an American citizen?
https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citiz ... -Diplomats

I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently I was wrong.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:11 am

glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:35 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:52 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm
Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
What that article explains is that you don't have to be born in the US if one of your parents is a US citizen.
I didn't see anything in there about what happens if you are born in the US but neither of your parents is a US resident.
Did I miss that?
I read it that your question is answered in the second paragraph, namely "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

The rest of the discussion involves people born abroad to one US citizen which is why they use examples of Ted Cruz, John McCain, George Romney and even Barry Goldwater and they conclude that all of them would be considered natural born citizens despite foreign birthplaces.
No, my question is not answered. Yes, of course someone who was a US citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. The question is whether you are a US citizen at birth if your parents weren't residents of the US when you were born in the US, which is obviously a different question.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by glennds » Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:56 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:11 am
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:35 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:52 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm
Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
What that article explains is that you don't have to be born in the US if one of your parents is a US citizen.
I didn't see anything in there about what happens if you are born in the US but neither of your parents is a US resident.
Did I miss that?
I read it that your question is answered in the second paragraph, namely "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

The rest of the discussion involves people born abroad to one US citizen which is why they use examples of Ted Cruz, John McCain, George Romney and even Barry Goldwater and they conclude that all of them would be considered natural born citizens despite foreign birthplaces.
No, my question is not answered. Yes, of course someone who was a US citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. The question is whether you are a US citizen at birth if your parents weren't residents of the US when you were born in the US, which is obviously a different question.
I absolutely see the distinction in the two different questions.
So the first line of the 14th amendment says

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If this provision is conditional on the status of the parents, then it was not only drafted poorly, but negligently IMO. If the framers of the Constitution intended citizenship to be conditional and the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant the same, both groups failed to say so which would make it a case of drafting negligence x 2. Amateur hour.

So at the very least a new constitutional amendment would be required to support the belief of those that hold the yes but conditional view. Although there are people who believe a simpler statute passed by Congress, or even an Executive Order from the President could add the condition.

The further complication is whether there is any distinction between whether one or both parents were (i) illegally in the US (ii) legally in the US say under any type of visa, or even as a tourist. You would think there ought to be a distinction between a truly illegal immigrant and people such as Harris' parents who were in the US legally for 5 years having followed a process for legally obtaining a visa. As I said earlier, there is also the distinction of whether a change in interpretation would occur in a way that affects all, or only affecting eligibility for President. Obviously the former would be sweeping and the latter not so much.

I think the way the 14th Amendment reads now is pretty clear. But I also can see there is debate over the issue, and I could imagine it being changed (or clarified if you wish) for the future if there were a strong enough movement to do so, but I find it hard to believe that any such thing would happen retroactively.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:08 am

glennds wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:56 am
Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:11 am
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:35 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:52 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm
Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
What that article explains is that you don't have to be born in the US if one of your parents is a US citizen.
I didn't see anything in there about what happens if you are born in the US but neither of your parents is a US resident.
Did I miss that?
I read it that your question is answered in the second paragraph, namely "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

The rest of the discussion involves people born abroad to one US citizen which is why they use examples of Ted Cruz, John McCain, George Romney and even Barry Goldwater and they conclude that all of them would be considered natural born citizens despite foreign birthplaces.
No, my question is not answered. Yes, of course someone who was a US citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. The question is whether you are a US citizen at birth if your parents weren't residents of the US when you were born in the US, which is obviously a different question.
I absolutely see the distinction in the two different questions.
So the first line of the 14th amendment says

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If this provision is conditional on the status of the parents, then it was not only drafted poorly, but negligently IMO. If the framers of the Constitution intended citizenship to be conditional and the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant the same, both groups failed to say so which would make it a case of drafting negligence x 2. Amateur hour.

So at the very least a new constitutional amendment would be required to support the belief of those that hold the yes but conditional view. Although there are people who believe a simpler statute passed by Congress, or even an Executive Order from the President could add the condition.

The further complication is whether there is any distinction between whether one or both parents were (i) illegally in the US (ii) legally in the US say under any type of visa, or even as a tourist. You would think there ought to be a distinction between a truly illegal immigrant and people such as Harris' parents who were in the US legally for 5 years having followed a process for legally obtaining a visa. As I said earlier, there is also the distinction of whether a change in interpretation would occur in a way that affects all, or only affecting eligibility for President. Obviously the former would be sweeping and the latter not so much.

I think the way the 14th Amendment reads now is pretty clear. But I also can see there is debate over the issue, and I could imagine it being changed (or clarified if you wish) for the future if there were a strong enough movement to do so, but I find it hard to believe that any such thing would happen retroactively.
The question is the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". My position, as well as that of a number of other knowledgeable commenters, is that would require you to have permanent ties to this country, e.g., your parents are permanent residents rather than being tourists or illegal immigrants. IIRC, the only case where the Supreme Court said that someone born here to non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen was one where the parents were permanent residents, not tourists or other temporary residents.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by vnatale » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:40 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:08 am
glennds wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:56 am
Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:11 am
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:35 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:52 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm
Doing a little research on the definition of "natural born citizen" and thus Harris' eligibility to be President, I found the following Harvard Law Review article on the subject:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on ... n-citizen/. Case law and other citations are provided.

I liked where they called the Constitution "refreshingly clear" on this issue.
What that article explains is that you don't have to be born in the US if one of your parents is a US citizen.
I didn't see anything in there about what happens if you are born in the US but neither of your parents is a US resident.
Did I miss that?
I read it that your question is answered in the second paragraph, namely "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

The rest of the discussion involves people born abroad to one US citizen which is why they use examples of Ted Cruz, John McCain, George Romney and even Barry Goldwater and they conclude that all of them would be considered natural born citizens despite foreign birthplaces.
No, my question is not answered. Yes, of course someone who was a US citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. The question is whether you are a US citizen at birth if your parents weren't residents of the US when you were born in the US, which is obviously a different question.
I absolutely see the distinction in the two different questions.
So the first line of the 14th amendment says

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If this provision is conditional on the status of the parents, then it was not only drafted poorly, but negligently IMO. If the framers of the Constitution intended citizenship to be conditional and the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant the same, both groups failed to say so which would make it a case of drafting negligence x 2. Amateur hour.

So at the very least a new constitutional amendment would be required to support the belief of those that hold the yes but conditional view. Although there are people who believe a simpler statute passed by Congress, or even an Executive Order from the President could add the condition.

The further complication is whether there is any distinction between whether one or both parents were (i) illegally in the US (ii) legally in the US say under any type of visa, or even as a tourist. You would think there ought to be a distinction between a truly illegal immigrant and people such as Harris' parents who were in the US legally for 5 years having followed a process for legally obtaining a visa. As I said earlier, there is also the distinction of whether a change in interpretation would occur in a way that affects all, or only affecting eligibility for President. Obviously the former would be sweeping and the latter not so much.

I think the way the 14th Amendment reads now is pretty clear. But I also can see there is debate over the issue, and I could imagine it being changed (or clarified if you wish) for the future if there were a strong enough movement to do so, but I find it hard to believe that any such thing would happen retroactively.
The question is the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". My position, as well as that of a number of other knowledgeable commenters, is that would require you to have permanent ties to this country, e.g., your parents are permanent residents rather than being tourists or illegal immigrants. IIRC, the only case where the Supreme Court said that someone born here to non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen was one where the parents were permanent residents, not tourists or other temporary residents.
If I was of a certain personality type I might first respond with: "That may be the position of dangerously stupid people but it is not the position of any knowledgeable person. " But since I am NOT that certain personality type I'd never start my response with that.

However, I would add...

If you need to have permanent ties in order to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, it means anyone without permanent ties has absolute immunity from the laws of the United States. Being subject to the law is what the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. A lack of jurisdiction means only one thing: the court can’t touch them.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Xan » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 am

I don't think it's nearly so cut-and-dried, Vinny. Guests in this country who commit crimes, for example, are often deported rather than prosecuted.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by vnatale » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:09 am

Xan wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 am
I don't think it's nearly so cut-and-dried, Vinny. Guests in this country who commit crimes, for example, are often deported rather than prosecuted.
But is that an example of having "absolute immunity from the laws of the United States."? I'd say that the fact that they are being deported means definitely no.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Xan » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:22 am

If your interpretation were correct, there would be no need for the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause. It must mean SOMETHING.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by Cortopassi » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:01 pm

tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:15 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 am
I don't think it's nearly so cut-and-dried, Vinny. Guests in this country who commit crimes, for example, are often deported rather than prosecuted.
So when President Harris attempts to pack the Supreme Court, in violation of the constitution, can we have her deported? 8)
Does it say somewhere here it must be 9 people? Or am I missing TF sarcasm?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Yet another election complication

Post by vnatale » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:58 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:01 pm
tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:15 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 am
I don't think it's nearly so cut-and-dried, Vinny. Guests in this country who commit crimes, for example, are often deported rather than prosecuted.
So when President Harris attempts to pack the Supreme Court, in violation of the constitution, can we have her deported? 8)
Does it say somewhere here it must be 9 people? Or am I missing TF sarcasm?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
I do not believe it is anywhere in the Constitution. It was decided somewhere along the line by Congress. Which was why Roosevelt was going to "pack the court" with Congressional approval but then public opinion put an end to that.

The saddest thing of all is that we have judges that represent either side. Judges are supposed to exist to carry out the proverbial "blind" justice, just taking into account the facts and the law. However, since so many laws are sloppily written they oftentimes do have to get involved. And, the Constitution does not always offer clear guidance. Therefore, on what basis do they make their rulings?

VInny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply