Replies

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
Page 88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

The above differentiates natural born citizens from aliens or foreigners, then immediately segues into some authorities going further.

This will be construed to mean just what I wrote in the reply to which you responded, that the doubt expressed centers upon extending natural born citizenship due to birth in the jurisdiction regardless of parental citizenship.

You've seen it argued again and again, that is their position and they're sticking to it. Doubt is being resolved as we speak and will be removed altogether upon the completion of a second term. That is what they'll argue, and I see little to stop it.

I would welcome a successful challenge, I view Obama as being a foreigner in heart and mind with little empathy or understanding of American citizens. I also see him as having been legally ineligible due to being subject to another jurisdiction at birth.

But, it's just about to the point of being water under the bridge at this late date. I won't argue it further. Doing so has accomplished nothing. It's all but over and done now.

That is what they'll argue, and I see little to stop it.

What stops it are some quotes from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark more than 20 years later when it affirms that the Minor decision construed the 14th amendment as NOT defining natural-born citizens. The position of "some authorities" is comprehensively negated by this declaration in Wong Kim Ark. The second thing that negates it is the failure of the Wong Kim Ark court to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen. In 2009, the Indiana Appeals Court had no problem recognizing that Ark was NOT found to be a natural-born citizen. Third, the thing that stops it is that the Wong Kim Ark decision gave the holding from Minor and said her citizenship was based on being born in the country to citizen parents. Why would they do that if they believed someone could be a natural-born citizen without having citizen parents?? What legal point is served by having citizen parents if NOT for how Article II eligibility is defined??

AND further, Minor and NOT Ark was recognized as THE precedent and Article II eligibility by the Supreme Court in 1913 in Luria v. United States.

But if you need more, simply put these two declarations side-by-side from Minor:

A: ... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

B: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

These two statements only talk about the doubt of being a citizen; it's not doubt about being a natural-born citizen, just being a citizen. For A, there is no doubt. For B, there is doubt. Only ONE of these two statements was characterized as natural-born. If there's doubt about B, why would it be characterized as natural-born?? And why say ANYTHING at all about being born to citizen parents if there's not a material distinction between these two classes?? What would be the point, especially if the 14th amendment could be used to resolve those doubts??