Supreme Court precedent
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), all children born in the United States were divided into two categories: those whose parents were U.S. citizens, and
those whose parents were not. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first category. The Court doubted
whether members of the second category were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens [22]:
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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor
v. Happersett, 1874).
Since a child acquires “natural born citizen” status only at birth [07], and since the Supreme Court (in Minor v. Happersett) “distinguished” natural
born citizens from aliens or foreigners, it follows that natural born citizens are persons who, when born, are not aliens or foreigners, i.e., are neither
foreign-born nor foreign citizens/subjects.
Presidential Eligibility Tutorial http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
21 of 167
subject to U.S. “jurisdiction” at the time of your birth or naturalization.
According to the framers and sponsors of the 14th Amendment, the word “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, means
sole and complete U.S. jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign power (Question 12: Jurisdiction). Children born in the United States, of foreign-
citizen parents, are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign country to which their parents owe allegiance.
Two Supreme Court opinions — Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) — affirmed the framers’ originally-intended meaning of
“jurisdiction”. In both cases, a child born on U.S. soil, of alien parents, is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction at birth; such child is subject to the
jurisdiction of the foreign government to which the child’s father owes allegiance. Consequently, such child is not a 14th Amendment citizen at birth
[26].
Since his father was a British national, President Obama was subject to British jurisdiction at birth. His citizenship status at birth was “governed” by
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.