The natural born comment in the Constitution has always been interpreted to mean "within the territory of the United States". Lots of discussion about what that meant and why back then, contrary to the remark about the Founders being silent.
My Grandfather, a United States Consul, thought it so important that he sent my Grandmother home to have my Mother on U.S. soil in the 20's. He knew: his job was to admit people to the United States overseas and to process those claiming citizenship by virtue of birth to U.S. citizens abroad. Believe me, there were questions then just as now. Only birth on U.S. soil under legal circumstances erases all doubt.
There are historical reasons why the Constitution was written this way. The European Monarchs played musical chairs to keep the power in their "family" and to create alliances. The current "British" royal family is in fact a gang of Germans as a few people know these days. The Founders wanted no part of foreign thugs ruling them as had happened in Oppressed Europe.
Thus the Natural Born requirement. And no, you can't do a Steve Breyer and change the meaning by re-defining it in modern terms (like the poster who claims that they should have said "native born").
We won't be ruled by foreigners and those not loyal. That is why the rule exists. And it should never, ever change, and in fact should be strengthened in this day and age of Globalist scheming to undermine the Independence of the United States.
Thank you for your post.
So many people refuse to understand that “natural born” refers to “being born on US soil”
In regards to running for President....the requirement is to be “natural born”. Since The Canal Zone was part of the US at the time...McCain qualifies for the Presidency
This judge, although correct in the overall ruling, quite obviously has little understanding of the Constitution.
And correct, the “natural born” provision was included precisely to keep non-Americans (ie royal families) from ruling the country.
And how wise our forefathers were....some of the worlds most totalitarian and power mad rulers years later were all foreigners to their country...Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler....
My Grandfather, a United States Consul, thought it so important that he sent my Grandmother home to have my Mother on U.S. soil in the 20’s. He knew: his job was to admit people to the United States overseas and to process those claiming citizenship by virtue of birth to U.S. citizens abroad. Believe me, there were questions then just as now. Only birth on U.S. soil under legal circumstances erases all doubt.
_______________________________________
I was stationed overseas during the early 70’s...
If I had had children while I was away, they would NOT have been eligible to be POTUS...
Even though their father and I were BOTH Americans and in the US military.....
I had the understanding that if a person is born outside of the US because one or more parent is serving in the military and assigned overseas, it is no different than being born on American soil.
The Panama Canal Zone, at the time McCain was born was considered to be a military base - making it American soil.
Personally, I find it ridiculous that this suit was even brought in the first place.
And yet Congress, in 1790, passed a law that made it clear that the children of American citizens born abroad qualified as natural born citizens. In 1790, some of the people who were involved in writing the Constitution were still in Congress. So that seems to show that the natural born citizen means someone who is a citizen at birth, rather than naturalization, regardless of where they are actually born.
The only distinctions in American law regarding citizenship are between a citizen at birth and a naturalized citizen- there is no other category of citizen.
And before the Germans, England was ruled by Dutch.