That’s not how the opinion works. The Supremes said states can’t remove candidates from the federal ballot under the insurrection clause. They can remove state candidates. It doesn’t rule on anything else.
That’s a very good question, because I don’t think it’s ever been a real issue. Not among “serious” candidates (read: not some rando third party with zero chance).
Those factors are more mechanical. Being of age isn’t a judgement issue unless someone says there’s a mistake on their birth certificate or something. Natural born citizen is usually mechanical. Most candidates have been clearly born in the United States, and there’s no debate about it. There was a little question around McCain, who was born in Panama, but there was clearly an act of Congress that made kids born there to American service members into citizens. If we take all the claims of the Obama Birthers at face value (which are nonsense), then he’d still be a citizen due to his mother being a citizen.
However, I do think the Birthers uncovered a problem while they fumbled around like idiots. They tried to get Obama off the ballot using the courts, and repeatedly had them dismissed due to lack of standing. If there actually was a valid reason to challenge someone under those requirements, it’s not obvious who can enforce it.
I was under the impression that being a citizen wasn’t enough, you had to be a natural born citizen. I don’t think Obamas citizenship was ever in question, just his birthplace
There’s documented evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii, and no real evidence that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else. That resolves the issue right there.
That said, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother is a US citizen, and he therefore had citizenship automatically at birth under US law. There’s some SovCit-level bullshit about making a distinction between “natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth”, but it’s not taken seriously.
That’s not how the opinion works. The Supremes said states can’t remove candidates from the federal ballot under the insurrection clause. They can remove state candidates. It doesn’t rule on anything else.
So how do they remove someone who isn’t of age or a natural born citizen?
That’s a very good question, because I don’t think it’s ever been a real issue. Not among “serious” candidates (read: not some rando third party with zero chance).
Those factors are more mechanical. Being of age isn’t a judgement issue unless someone says there’s a mistake on their birth certificate or something. Natural born citizen is usually mechanical. Most candidates have been clearly born in the United States, and there’s no debate about it. There was a little question around McCain, who was born in Panama, but there was clearly an act of Congress that made kids born there to American service members into citizens. If we take all the claims of the Obama Birthers at face value (which are nonsense), then he’d still be a citizen due to his mother being a citizen.
However, I do think the Birthers uncovered a problem while they fumbled around like idiots. They tried to get Obama off the ballot using the courts, and repeatedly had them dismissed due to lack of standing. If there actually was a valid reason to challenge someone under those requirements, it’s not obvious who can enforce it.
I was under the impression that being a citizen wasn’t enough, you had to be a natural born citizen. I don’t think Obamas citizenship was ever in question, just his birthplace
“The U.S. Constitution states that the president must: Be a natural-born citizen of the United States”
There’s documented evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii, and no real evidence that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else. That resolves the issue right there.
That said, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother is a US citizen, and he therefore had citizenship automatically at birth under US law. There’s some SovCit-level bullshit about making a distinction between “natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth”, but it’s not taken seriously.
I don’t disagree
Did you read the link in my post? that distinction IS made on an official US Government websiteI misread your post
The rest of their reasoning was basically “Congress can’t do this shit, it’d be a mess, so we’ll step up and reverse that clause.”
They specifically said they will enforce the constitution as they see fit.