The Death Knell For Every Birther Argument

Yes, to my chagrin, there actually ARE still a few people who refuse to believe reality. That being said, if you happen to encounter one of these mental defectives, all you have to do is cite FEDERAL LAW. It kills EVERY ONE of their arguments. Unfortunately, what it DOESN'T do is give them sufficient brain-power to accept a fact that they vehemently don't like.



Title 8, Section 1401 of the United States Code:

The following people are "citizens of the United States at birth":

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

That's the response you will get, and it is correct.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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."

Now, let's see. Where would I go to find out what happens when the language of the Constitution is vague as to a specific issue? Oh, that's right, THE CONSTITUTION provides statutes and Courts to "fill in the gaps" when the language of the Constitution is vague. And so long as those statutes and court decisions don't CONFLICT with the Constitutional provision, they will be considered the law of the land.

Statutes limit and expand on Constitutional provisions all the time. It's accepted as commonplace here in reality-based world.

Next.

I'm certainly not arguing that the President is ineligible for the office, but were the issue to reach the Supreme Court, Congress' definition would not be determinative (however, the Court would likely take the opinion of another branch into consideration).

how can the argument that statutes can't amend the Constitution be used? What in the law cited amends the Constitution?

edit:sp

That might be putting the cart before the horse - as the Supreme Court has not ruled either way - but were the Court to decide, it would not be bound by this statute (because statutes cannot amend the Constitution).

ETA: I should note that some legislation actually can, if pursuant to those enabling clauses at the end of the more recent amendments.

The Constitution provides for the passage of laws by Congress so as to clarify itself.

Not me.

I'm fairly certain you're an attorney so you should know better than to respond in such a way.