Replies

Re: No, we are addressing the meaning of a term...Only an amendment...

Your post makes my point. You want a law, but that would make anyone under that law a “statutory” citizen.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature). A person who is natural born requires no laws to define their citizenship.

That's the point. A “natural born” citizen just is.

When Barack Obama was born of a Kenyan parent, his birthright, should he have chosen, was to affirm his Kenyan citizenship. He had a choice under the statutes (laws) of both the US and Kenya.

When John McCain was born in the Republic of Panama his birthright gave him a choice to affirm, should he choose, a Panamanian citizenship. He had a choice under the laws of both countries.

When Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, of parents who were American citizens (also born in Illinois), he was “at birth” a “natural born” citizen. he had NO choices.

I agree that your definition is the proper one and the only right one. However, in Minor v. Happersett, Justice Waite refers to citizens other than those born here to citizen parents who may also be natural born citizens. He says that with regard to the first group there is no doubt as to their status and that there has been doubt with regard to the second group. Doubt does not equate to an absolute determination. That's why we need a SCOTUS ruling. Our preferred definition is not outlined in the Constitution.

Your post makes my point. You want a law, but that would make anyone under that law a “statutory” citizen.

I do not want a law, but the law may, as 8 USC 1401 does in some respects, duplicate the effect of the natural law.(well it duplicates part of the 14th amendment)

Vattel was writing of Natural Law. The alternate title of "Law of Nations" was:

PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

But because the founders knew what "Natural Born Citizen" meant, they probably thought that everyone always would. But I think that looking to Vattel for the founder's understanding is not at all unreasonable, although of course it would come in second or third behind the debates in Congress and the State ratifying conventions, the federalist papers and so forth. Problem is, there were no debates on the issue, and the Federalist papers do not define the term either. We know the founders read LoN, in both the original French, and the rather poor early English translations. In particular the 3 copies sent to Ben Franklin were apparently the original French, which he could of course read and speak. Since we believe they adopted the Vattel understanding of Natural Born citizen, it's only natural, excuse the term, that we also accept his quite common sense exception for the children of those who parents happened to be out of the country in its service at the time they were born. The parents never owed any allegiance to any sovereign but that of the their parents. True, if they were abroad long enough they might develop attachments to the host country, but the same is true of those born in the parents' country and then taken abroad for an extended period.