Replies

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

Precedent Obama has rendered that clause moot.
Under the current definition of simply being born a citizen, if even only on one’s mother’s side, makes every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible. (his mother was an American)

I went to school in the 1960’s and was taught that natural born citizen was a subset of citizen and required only for the office of President. Must be born here to citizen parents. Reading the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution confirms this. They wanted no divided allegiance. If you could be anything other than a U.S. citizen, you can’t be a natural born citizen. No foreign births, no foreign parents.

Many people wanted the definition changed for various reasons. The Republicans had many more ineligible people coming up than the Democrats so they gave Obama a pass.

Having an usurper in office has not been good for the country, has it?

Mr. Sincerity himself, Alan Grayson, threatened to file suit in November 2015, and is going after this “birther” thing hammer and tongs. This particular suit was filed by another Texan, a Houston lawyer, Newton B. Schwartz Sr.

The reason that none of the suits against the Current Occupant were allowed to go anywhere was that none of the challengers “had standing” to file, i.e., they were not harmed by the fact that the Current Occupant’s birth data impacted them in any way. Technically, the only person “having standing” might have bee no less than Herself, in 2008, who was “harmed” by the aggressive pursuit of the Democrat nomination by no less than Barack Hussein Obama. And if Herself would not pursue it then, what grounds would Herself or anyone working on the behalf of Herself have to bring it up today?

So far, nobody “has standing” to bring this particular suit, not even if that person is another lawyer.