I took civics at an secular private high school in southern California. Before that, I took it at a Catholic junior high school. Like everyone else, I learned that a natural born citizen is anyone who is born a citizen. That means anyone born in the USA, unless the child of diplomats or invaders or some other class not subject to US jurisdiction, is a natural born citizen. Likewise, anyone born of citizen parents abroad is also a natural born citizen.
Every single civics textbook used in the USA over the last 100 years that addressed the subject defines it the same way.
This wasn't controversial until the birthers started making the two-citizen parent argument after Obama's election. Don't you find it strange that no one was making it before?
How old are you?
34. You?
I’m 53 years young!
I find it hard to beleive that you have read through every civics textbook used in the last 100 years. Not all schools even had civics classes and I am sure many schools had old textbooks or none at all used for these classes. I learned about the Constitution in my US History classes and social studies classes. I attended a Catholic grade school for 7 years where I first discussed the Constitution, Bill of Right’s etc., a public middle school for one year, a public high school, and went to school at three different colleges part time at night to earn my degrees while I worked full time during the day. My entire education was in the state of Oregon, which was actually a far more conservative state then, than it is now. It was in these settings that I was taught that a “natural born citizen” was a child born in the U.S. to two parents who were U.S. Citizens.
We often did not use text books with regard to learning about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc. We used transcriptions of the actual documents, and sometimes government pamphlets and copies of other historical documents. We didn’t have textbooks for many of our classes such as reading, writing, U.S. History and even math, since the teachers didn’t need textbooks to teach us those subjects, they simply knew the material. Homework assignments were usually typed up by the teachers and mimeographed off for us to take home and complete. In my earlier grades we had an atlas style book to use for social studies and even that was quite out of date, so we spent a lot of time at the county library doing research projects on a specific country and then made presentations ourselves to our classmates. We also had 50 students in each of my classes from first through seventh grade and we all learned quite well. The public schools had fewer students for most of my classes, however, there were still far more per class then than there is in most classes today.
Even in high school our text books were quite old and the teachers hardly used them except for math classes. It wasn’t until I got to college that I had textbooks that were fairly current and even then many of them were reprints of older text books.
We were taught not to beleive everything in a textbook because it might not be accurate or unbiased but to research things for ourselves and to use original sources whenever possible. When a person reads the “natural born citizen clause” after reading other texts like the Federalist papers, correspondence between our founders and other early historical documents it only makes sense that to be a “Natural born citizen” one would need to be born in the United States and be the child of two U.S. citizens.
At 34 and growing up in California I would suggest to you that you still have a lot to learn about life in more conservative parts of the country. I do not profess to know everything even at my age and I have almost 20 years on you. Learning is a continual process throughout a person’s life and few people ever stop learning.
I refer you to the Constitution: There is a scale of qualifications for Federal elected offices. Any sort of citizen can qualify for any Federal office, except the Presidency, by satisfying residency and age requirements. In other words, a naturalized citizen, or a native-born citizen can become a Representative, or a Senator.
To become President,however, the Constitution clearly states that one is required to be a Natural Born Citizen. Therefore, there is a difference between a Natural Born Citizen and a Native Born Citizen, not to mention a naturalized citizen. But it is fair to say that there is no explicit definition offered in the document, except by differentiation. Most likely because the Founders took Natural Born Citizenship for granted. BTW, they knew they were not. You might find, in researching the source materials used by the Founders, "Natural Born Citizen" would then take on a much clearer meaning.
You, no doubt because of your most excellent education in the 1980's secondary schools of southern California, are joining a band of scholars who feel that a Native Born Citizen IS a Natural Born Citizen, a claim usually based on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If such is indeed found to be the case, well then, your side shall have won! Good news! Your side may even be in the majority. Let's see what the courts decide, when they get around to it.
Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. had the choice, upon reaching his majority, of choosing British, Kenyan, Indonesian, or American Citizenship. No such choice would be available to a Natural Born Citizen. There is no record of a choice being made. But assuming he chose American citizenship, that would not make him a Natural Born citizen.
However, although I think Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. is Constitutionally ineligible, he does hold the office, and is the sitting POTUS. He probably will remain in office until 2012, by which time Natural Born Citizenship shall have been much more precisely and publicly defined, perhaps by several states. At that time, we'll see who is eligible and who is not.
I refer you to the Constitution: There is a scale of qualifications for Federal elected offices. Any sort of citizen can qualify for any Federal office, except the Presidency, by satisfying residency and age requirements. In other words, a naturalized citizen, or a native-born citizen can become a Representative, or a Senator.
To become President,however, the Constitution clearly states that one is required to be a Natural Born Citizen. Therefore, there is a difference between a Natural Born Citizen and a Native Born Citizen, not to mention a naturalized citizen. But it is fair to say that there is no explicit definition offered in the document, except by differentiation. Most likely because the Founders took Natural Born Citizenship for granted. BTW, they knew they were not. You might find, in researching the source materials used by the Founders, "Natural Born Citizen" would then take on a much clearer meaning.
You, no doubt because of your most excellent education in the 1980's secondary schools of southern California, are joining a band of scholars who feel that a Native Born Citizen IS a Natural Born Citizen, a claim usually based on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If such is indeed found to be the case, well then, your side shall have won! Good news! Your side may even be in the majority. Let's see what the courts decide, when they get around to it.
Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. had the choice, upon reaching his majority, of choosing British, Kenyan, Indonesian, or American Citizenship. No such choice would be available to a Natural Born Citizen. There is no record of a choice being made. But assuming he chose American citizenship, that would not make him a Natural Born citizen.
However, although I think Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. is Constitutionally ineligible, he does hold the office, and is the sitting POTUS. He probably will remain in office until 2012, by which time Natural Born Citizenship shall have been much more precisely and publicly defined, perhaps by several states. At that time, we'll see who is eligible and who is not.