The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Don't get confused with the "U.S. soil" term.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The determination is made at birth. (see in situ)

Don't get confused with the "U.S. soil" term.

Military bases, not in one of the several States, are NOT part of the "United States of America" for purposes of natural born citizenship.

Neither are the District of Columbia, or the Territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the U.S. Virgin Islands part of the United States of America.

Do not confuse land OWNED by the United States (and under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress) with land that is PART OF one of the several States of the union - aka the United States of America. (where jurisdiction is with the States and with certain limited powers granted to Congress) Territories, military bases, D.C., et cetera are NOT part of the United States of America. They are owned by them. People born there, even to two citizens are not "natural born citizens" eligible to be President.

We have never had a president from D.C. or any Territory, (though some may have been born when their States were still territories, which is an old dispute) and if someone did run, there would be no question of their ineligibility. (or at least their should not be)

If you want to argue that people born in D.C. and the territories should be considered eligible, you'll need a constitutional amendment to make it happen, and let's not forget, that standard would have also allowed people from Cuba, Phillipines, et al to be president if their parents were citizens, or worse, considered "anchor babies" under the 14th during the period that those lands were under U.S. ownership and control.