But you may be correct in suggesting my prior post was too general when I stated: “...If both of your parents were alive and living in this country, you were a “natural born” citizen”.... I may now have to change that to “If both parents were born in the colonies,”... they would have been U.S. citizens at the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution(alive or dead), would be a more accurate statement.
++++++++++++++++++
According to SCOTUS case law, there is no doubt on that class you mention being ‘natural born citizens.’
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
++++++++++++
Clearly, it’s the ‘this class there have been doubts’ that we’re concerned about, at the least with Obama - who according to his tiny amount of disclosure, had one non-citizen father. If he were born in Kenya, then even his citizenship is in doubt, as many others have pointed out on numerous occasions.
According to SCOTUS case law, there is no doubt on that class you mention being ‘natural born citizens.’
+++++++++++++
This may not be true according to RegulatorCountry:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=7149#7149
“George Washington was not a natural born citizen, since his eligibility was determined via the so-called grandfather clause. In other words, he was a citizen at the time of ratification of the Constitution, and met the age and length of residency requirements as well, so he was eligible. That both his parents were born in Virginia themselves didn’t have anything to do with his eligibility under the Constitution, at that time. The only thing that mattered was that Washington was a citizen, at least 35 years old, and resident 14 years.”
++++++++++
Right, because his parents were not US citizens, at the time of George Washington’s birth. They may have been colonial citizens, but not US citizens.