I think you’d be interested in this law journal note (it’s only 18 pages long), which analyzes all of the precedents and interpretations surrounding the Natural-Born Citizen Clause: http://yalelawjournal.org/2008/03/03/citizenship.html The article concludes that a person with the right to U.S. citizenship at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.
Of course, reasonable minds may disagree, but I would be shocked if federal courts ruled that someone that is a citizen at birth but was not born within the geographic U.S. was not eligible to serve as president.
Of course, reasonable minds may disagree, but I would be shocked if federal courts ruled that someone that is a citizen at birth but was not born within the geographic U.S. was not eligible to serve as president.
Excellent find.
Note the publication date places the article squarely in the political debate time frame. Like the Olson legal opinion, the political origin of the views set forth influence the conclusion.
But, as you suggest, reasonable lawyers differ on this kind of issue on a regular basis. There is a law review article that reaches a semi-contrary conclusion in the Boston University Law Journal last year; together with a national publication article by John Dean (Nixon's White House counsel) to the same end; both suggesting that the issue presents a serious problem which should be corrected by Constitutional Amendment.
I would feel comfortable making the argument to the Supreme Court that the Natural Born test means born in the geographical territory of the states of the United States. Observe that if the citizenship statutes control, Congress can effectively amend the Constitution by statute. I don't think the Court will reach that decision.
“The article concludes that a person with the right to U.S. citizenship at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.”
Sometimes simple truth cuts through all the guff like a knife through butter.