I’m not a troll, but I am a lawyer. In the U.S. v. Ark case, the Supreme Court stated that at common law, a natural born subject was anyone born in the dominions of the King, even if both parents were non-British subjects. The exceptions to the rule are the ones laid out in the Ark case, such as ambassadors, people merely visitors, etc.
It seems to me that the Framers would have been very familiar with the term natural born subject under the common law. Because the U.S. is not a monarchy, there are no U.S. “subjects”, but rather citizens. Thus, natural born citizen probably means the same thing as under the common law - a child born within the territory of the United States, regardless of the nationality of the parents, with limited exceptions.
In my opinion, Donofrio’s case will fail because natural born citizen will be interpreted as meaning the same thing as natural born subject at common law. Of course, that assumes SCOTUS even takes the case.
My fear is that even if SCOTUS takes Donofrio’s case, it will define “natural born citizen,” but leave the issue of the birth certificate untouched.
What is the issue of the birth certificate? Looks like there’s a copy showing he’s born in Hawaii. The only other piece of evidence that seems to be missing is verification by confirmation of his birth hospital records.
For me - a definition of natural born would be a good thing, but yes, the birth certificate verification should be required of any candidate for POTUS. I’m bothered by the lack of a process for this verification that protects the interests of the people and the rule of law - our Constitution.
Have you seen the comments posted here from Justice Scalia, regarding the common law vs constitutional law?
He is quoted as saying that “the common law is dead”, and that our country has not followed the common law for a very long time, and in fact, has hardly ever done so (paraphrasing).
He made these comments very recently, so they are timely, considering the issue that’s coming before them.
From a citizen’s point of view, I think it would be tragic, and even dangerous for the high court to not do their very utmost to settle this obviously confusing question. Quite a lot is riding on it, and I’m certain that they are keenly aware of the grave implications involved here.
I hope for an outcome that best serves our national security and our posterity.
It seems to me that the Framers would have been very familiar with the term natural born subject under the common law. Because the U.S. is not a monarchy, there are no U.S. “subjects”, but rather citizens. Thus, natural born citizen probably means the same thing as under the common law - a child born within the territory of the United States, regardless of the nationality of the parents, with limited exceptions.
In the Wang Kim Ark vs. U.S., the Supreme Court termed Wang's citizenship as 'native born citizen' and not natural born citizen. You are the confusing specifics of the case with holding or dictum.