[Campion]

Too bad you’ve read the Constitution, yet know nothing.

That's a nonsensical comeback if there's ever been one. Got an argument instead of an insult?

The Constitution is the law of the land. Nothing in the Constitution defines "natural-born citizen," much less defines it as requiring both parents to be citizens.

That means the term, legally, would have to be defined in federal statute and/or federal court case. The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision defined NBC -- it said anyone born in the US of parents who were under American jurisdiction (not foreign diplomats & not foreign military at war with the US) was an NBC -- but didn't specifically address Presidential eligibility. (Wong wasn't running for anything; he just wanted to get back into the country after visiting his parents in China.)

Someone who wanted to argue that, e.g., Jindal wasn't eligible to be president would have to argue that, although he's a natural-born citizen according to Wong, he's not really a natural-born citizen in the sense intended by Article III. Have fun with that.

You can argue until the cows come up about NBC requiring thus-and-such according to de Vattel, or about what the Founders thought it meant, etc. None of that has the force of law. What matters is what the law says.

[bluecat6]

Massive fail on the WKA. It never ‘defined’ natural born Citizen (no hyphen and a capital C BTW).

As for codified laws look to Immigration Act of 1790 for clarification. It made it clear jus sanguinis was the dominant factor in the nbC requirement.

[wideawake]

Good for you Campion.

There are a lot of self-described and self-promoting "experts on Constitutional law" on these forums.

Yet they seem to be versed only in whatever Ron Paul or Jerome Corsi's latest ramblings are.

[bgill]

Funny, I don’t recall you or a couple other posters who have suddenly shown up to deny source after scourc for TWO US CITIZEN PARTENTS in the countless other threads on NBC. Wonder why that is? But since you haven’t been in on these discussions for the past three years, here’s just one thread you might consider reading. No, you probably won’t read it but will just post some lame denial again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts

[rxsid]

"The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision defined NBC"

1. WKA, born in country to 2 legal immigrant aliens who were permanently domiciled here (& conducting a business) was found by the court to be a "citizen" (one word). They did not find Ark to be a "natural born Citizen."

It's interesting to note, that Associate Justice Horace Gray (who delivered the majority opinion) was appointed to the bench by none other than the original usurper...Chester Arthur...who was born in this country...but to a foreign national father and who ordered his personal and official papers burned on November 16 1886, one day prior to his death. Undoubtedly he did this to cover his tracks as being born a British subject (inherited from his foreign national father).

b. If you want to cite dicta, fine:

Chief Justice Marshall:

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814).
Here, we see the great Chief Justice Marshall (who would have studied Vattel's legal treatise "Law of Nations" at the country's first law school...the College of William and Mary...introduced to the school's curriculum in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson) directly quoting, by name, Vattel's work specifically regarding citizenship.

It's why we see Chief Justice Waite state

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar [edit: this nomenclature they were familiar with is directly mirrored to the definition found in Law of Nations...which the framers read and referenced during the Constitutional Convention], 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,"

in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Barry, born a multi-national...a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England (inherited by birthright from his foreign father), never was a "natural born Citizen" as known and intended by the framers for the position of Commander in Chief of the American "Army and Navy."

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

Office	Citizenship	Age	Residency (or years citizen)
Commander in Chief	natural born Citizen	35	14 years resident
Senator	Citizen	30	9 years a Citizen
Represantative	Citizen	25	7 years a Citizen