Replies

Here are three cases that used the accepted definition (as per Vattel):

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

And later,

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen.’ “
.

Here are three cases that used the accepted definition (as per Vattel):

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

And later,

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen.’ “

None of those cases had anything to do with ARTICLE TWO, SECTION ONE of the CONSTITUTION: eligibility to be President of the United States.

Be patient with James777. He or she has a job to do. James must create confusion among those who haven't the time to locate and read original documents. She is failing, judging from the number of respondents who understand the irrelevance of birth certificates.

James777 doesn't care about winning points, or explaining, or truth. His/her job is to obfuscate; there has been nothing new for months now. Initially, she was useful because whomever provided her talking points pointed at confusing aspects of the history of the term natural born citizen. Again, she doesn't care. That is not her objective. She uses Alinsky’s fifth rule “ridicule is man's most potent weapon” only when semantic tricks don't work, or when responding to someone who is particularly clear. The concise and clear answers are what she needs to undermine. Eventually, one way or another, Obama will disappear and his supporters will go back into the woodwork, or to their taxpayer funded union jobs.