Replies

And in 1961, the requirement was for five years after age 14.

SCOTUS isn’t going to do anything until a real case involving a presidential candidate is brought.

I find it sickening and revolting that this country cannot get a straight answer on who can be president because NOBODY wants to face the fact that there’s a dispute over the meaning of “natural born citizen” and there is NO AUTHORITY that the Supreme Court can point to and say, “This is what it means.”

I find this immoral and disgusting. It’s a dirty trick of unbelievable proportions. I am sick with anger.

How could we be so stupid?

The following is an excerpt from Leo Donofrio’s online site ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Please note in the second paragraph the Supreme Court says “...The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that...”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

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 [88 U.S. 162, 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.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

*****************************

So, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with natural born citizenship.

The Constitutional Congress used Emmerich de Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, as their primary source for constructing our constitution. That is the source of the ‘natural born Citizen’ definition.

Donofrio argues convincingly that SCOTUS must make a determination on this issue of natural born citizenship. I concurr.