Jump to content

Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 151.196.126.78 (talk) at 03:31, 22 April 2021 (→Preamble). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(Vice) presidents delivered through caesarean section are expressly NOT natural born persons.

Have there ever been any US (vice) POTUS born through caesarean section and/or conceived in vitro? Those medical methods verbosely and undeniably mean any such baby are NOT "natural born" and thus finding even one example among them would clearly show the whole "natural born citizen" clause to be mere filler text, that makes no sense and thus cannot be enforced. 84.236.41.64 (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM; cheers. --Weazie (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble

Can somebody please add the constitution's preamble on nature's god and natural rights? Every time I mention that citizenship is born naturally, through choice and freedom, according to the construction's definition, somebody erases anything that the preamble mentions on the subject. This trend of people thinking that they are born in countries and born into different rights (while still claiming to be US Citizens) is very annoying. I'd like to highlight that people not claiming to be "born in" the country and not claiming to have parents "born in" the country etc., were literally declared as de facto "natural born citizens," such as in 1784, when the Maryland General Assembly explained that Gilbert du Motier was in fact a "natural born citizen."

All this birthright and bloodline stuff is really an offense to The United States and anybody that shares the beliefs of it's constitution. Can somebody please add notes from the preamble and explain that people are not "born in" countries or nations (if they claim support for the United States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Among the problems is that no reliable source has said the Constitution's preamble is legally relevant to the natural-born-citizen clause. And the article already notes that Maryland declared Motier (Marquis de La Fayette) to be a natural-born citizen. --Weazie (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This trend of people thinking that they are born in countries and born into different rights (while still claiming to be US Citizens) is very annoying.
... what? No seriously, what in the world are you trying to say here?
That aside, no. I reverted your addition because it's WP:SYNTH. You're trying to add your own interpretation of this topic to the article with no reliable source to back it up. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll apologize up front for piling on, but basically what's been said above. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources which then are summarized in articles. Using the views and opinions of editors without those sources gets chaotic - how to handle the VAST multitude of views on this topic, which still giving the reader an overview they can have some faith? And more importantly, a way for the reader to verify that what's in the article has support in the real world. Again, that's where those sources come into play. For a topic like this, top level sources would be scholarly articles in legal journals that focus on this subject (and there are some in here). Without sources, it's called original research, meaning its purely from the editor. With a handful of sources that provide basic facts but then the editor draws their own conclusions from those facts, that's called synthesis. These are great for blogs, but not so great for Wikipedia. Hence the reverts. Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The preamble to the United States Constitution doesn't say anything at all about divinely given, natural rights. You might have been thinking of the United States Declaration of Independence, which does say that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", but the Declaration of Independence doesn't say anything about natural-born citizenship, and the DoI doesn't say anything about eligibility to be the President or Vice President of the United States (there was no such thing as the United States in 1776). Any suggestion that discussion of the Constitution's natural-born-citizen clause is offensive, either to the DoI or to the preamble to the Constitution, is at best "original research" and not a valid basis for dealing with content in Wikipedia. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was thinking of The Declaration of Independence, preceding The Constitution. It does discuss natural rights, however:

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle"

"all men are created ... with ... Liberty" etc.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

These are not interpretations, but direct quotes that are talking about the natural rights that we are born with. I know that Lafayette being noted as being a natural born citizen is already in the article, but it isn't really noted that Lafayette was not "born in" the USA. Nor did Lafayette have USA Parents. That's why I'm annoyed: all these people talking about being "born in the usa" and having rights here or there, when that entirely misses the point of our history. We are the only country that I know of that declared people are without governments and that they are free when they are born, but it feels like people from other countries are trying to make us similar to their countries. Or otherwise it feels like our own people aren't being taught right. I'd like to make it clear that US Citizens aren't born in countries and that our citizenship to the US comes naturally, through the (natural god-given) right to freedom of choice (or liberty) that all people have.

Again, this is your view, your opinion. That's not allowed on Wikipedia. As I said on my talk page, this is called synthesis - you're taking a couple of pieces of information and then drawing your own novel opinion / meaning. That's not what Wikipedia is about. You would need to find a legal scholar or law journal that discusses this, and lets be honest, this is not a majority view, it's not even a minority view. WP:FRINGE barely covers it. Expressing this in a blog post? All good. Expressing the idea here? Not good. Ravensfire (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are direct quotes drawing a novel meaning? "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" "all men are created equal with liberty" i'm literally not saying anything more than that. i'm not drawing any opinion or my own meanings: i'm handing you the actual quotes from the document itself. It is literally quoted that the assembly declared Fayette a natural born citizen and not by birth or parentage! That's not drawing my own conclusion! I'm not concluding anything. I'm citing the exact thing that they said! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk • contribs) 19:31, April 21, 2021 (UTC)

And then you are drawing a conclusion from those facts. That's WP:SYNTH. It's that simple. Until you bring a strong legal scholar or law journal that expresses the same opinions, this is going nowhere. Ravensfire (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'm asking you what conclusion i'm drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of this talk about the significance of the Declaration of Independence to natural-born citizenship is relevant to the "Natural-born-citizen clause" article unless it deals directly with eligibility under the Constitution to serve as President or Vice-President. The DoI doesn't say anything about US citizenship — natural-born or otherwise — or about eligibility to be President of the United States (these concepts did not exist in 1776). And even if it did, it is well settled in US jurisprudence that while the DoI may be useful to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws, the DoI itself doesn't have the force of law, and nothing in the Constitution can be said to be invalid because of a conflict with the DoI. So, from my viewpoint, this entire argument over the connection (if any) between the natural-born-citizen clause and anything said in the DoI is off-topic.
Also, 151.196.126.78, you would be strongly advised to review the Wikipedia policy on edit warring (WP:EW). Repeatedly reinstating an edit which others have undone is a violation of WP:EW and can lead to your being blocked from editing. Note, in particular, the "three-revert rule" (WP:3RR), which prohibits more than three reverts on any single page within a 24-hour period — you came very close to violating the 3RR earlier today, and if you do it again now, you'll almost certainly end up being blocked for at least 24 hours. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not talking to you. i'm talking to somebody else on the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)&oldid=1019214939"