Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

Should the Constitution be amended to define precisely who is a natural-born citizen?

Let's take out any ambiguity. Let's have an amendment to the constitution that says, "only a natural-born citizen can be president or vice president of the United States; a natural born citizen is one who was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his or her birth; if the person was born outside the U.S., he or she can be considered a natural-born citizen if both his mother and father were U.S. citizens at the time; also, one must have resided continuously for 14 years in the United States before seeking office."

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
    Best Answer

    Why are Conservatives always trying to rewrite a document they claim is "perfect"?

  • 8 years ago

    1. Natural Born doesn't mean what you think it means. The Supreme Court has already directly said that English Common Law defines terms in our constitution, which means that Natural Born means someone born on the soil, within the jurisdiction of the United States. That means that someone born to people who do not qualify for immunity from our laws (aka Foreign Diplomats, or Soldiers who are in occupied enemy territory).

    2. If you were writing this, why mention anything about the soil. According to you, Natural Born means someone who is born to 2 Citizens inside the United States. It also means someone who is born to 2 citizens outside the United States. So, why mention soil in the first place, if this is what you actually believe that it means? Saying that it is someone born to 2 Citizen Parents would be logically the same as what you propose.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    There's no ambiguity. The 14th amendment states that everyone born in the US is a citizen if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. "Subject to the jurisdiction" simply means that one is subject to the laws of the US. So anyone not the child of a diplomat or foreign sovereign, born here, is a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Period.

    This has been settled law for more than a century. But for some reason, some people suddenly want to change it. I wonder why.

  • 8 years ago

    If a natural born citizen requires birth on US soil AND 2 citizen parents, or birth to 2 citizen parent outside the US, why does the place of birth matter? You are requiring the 2 citizen parents in either case.

    That's why the rule is "born on US soil, parents don't matter" OR birth to at least one citizen parent, anywhere in the world.

    Birthers never think things all the way through.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    There's nothing wrong with the Constitution it has served well for over 300 years

    The real issues is YOU don't like the idea of a coloured person as president , the first issue was "where's his birth certificate " and now you want to change the constitution .

    Honestly people like you don't have the balls to do anything you'd rather snipe from the shadows

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    No, that would mean changing the constitution to fit your nationalist agenda. The constitution is fine the way it is. Don't ever accuse liberals of not obeying it. You seem to hate it, and you also seem to hate what this country stands for according to the constitution. So you're unAmerican, and you're not patriotic.

    That would mean that John McCain could never have ran for president as he was born in Panama.

  • 8 years ago

    Does it really need defining? Common sense tells you a natural born citizen is one who gains citizenship by virtue of their birth.

    Until the moronic birther movement came along nobody questioned this.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    so I assume a person born by c-section would not be 'natural born'

    nor would a person whose mother took any type of medication during delivery

    just sayin'

  • Sarah
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    I don't believe there is any ambiguity in the current rules for Presidential contenders.

  • 8 years ago

    No. That's stupid. The current laws are fine.

    If the public likes someone, HE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT. The current law isn't even necessary, but I'm ok with it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.