Yeah, let's look at that.
Wong Kim v. Ark addressed citizenship.
And in it Justice Gray said, "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." This concept follows precedent established by English common law and which was documented by Blackstone in his Commentaries. Since the Constitution identified only to methods of acquiring citizenship - birth and naturalization - then the Ark case is clearly stating that natural-born status is conveyed to any person born in this country and, with few exceptions, regardless of the nationality of the parents.
There was never a question of redefining natural born citizenship, which has never varied from the citations in The Venus, Minor. V. Happersett...
Natural born citizenship is not defined in the Happersett case. And if it was, it would not be legally binding because the Happersett case was a voting rights case and any comments on citizenship would have been made in dicta. And as for The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall quoted the following:
""The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
That definition in and of itself violates the Constitution in so many ways.
or, as Leo Donofrio has observed, when John Jay caused Alexander Hamilton to change the June 18 draft of the constitution regarding Article II, from “Citizen of the U.S.” into “Natural Born Citizen.” Jay explained in archived letters exactly what and why he wanted the commander in chief to be more than a citizen, and what legal dictionary, Law of Nations, he was using as a source.
You're going to have to provide a link to support that. From what I've seen, Jay's letter was short and to the point, and did not quote Vattel or define natural born citizen. Link
Do you think, as a matter or Constitutional history, SCOTUS precedent and practicality, that Anchor Babies should be eligible to be POTUS?
The term 'anchor baby' is a modern one and invokes a certain stigma. I do believe that the Founding Fathers would have been more likely to follow English Common Law and Blackstone in their definition of natural-born citizen, and under those definitions any child born here would qualify.
Neither English common-law nor Blackstone had a definition or “natural-born citizen.” Hope this helps.
In reference to anchor babies: What about the term ‘domicile’ for the parents? What about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ What about Ark's reference to “including all children here born of resident aliens.” Do “illegal aliens” and their babies apply to this comment? Simply, no, because their neither legal and under the jurisdiction of the US, nor are they legally resident; not legally domiciled. I don't think those SCOTUS Jurists in the 19th C. could have possible conceived of the illegal alien problem we'd have in the 21st C.
In reference to BO, if he were born in HI, which he steadfastly refuses to prove to us, I will agree that he's a US citizen, however, he may have been a dual citizen of Great Britain/Kenya - which gets to the heart of the intent of the NBC status in the US Constitution.
You haven't shown us that the precedent on Article II, Section 1, has sufficiently handled that.
If BO was born in Kenya, to an 18 year old US citizen in 1961 - well he wasn't a US citizen under the prevailing law of the time. Then he's plum out.
Of course bammy himself has put us all in this position of guessing and informing ourselves on all matters of SCOTUS precedent (which in an of itself is not a bad thing) but for the sake of the POTUS is a NIGHTMARE of immense proportions. And the dim bulb party skips merrily along the way.
I will look for those other reference links for Jay's letter, etc.