I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787
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. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…
“An example of where common sense is faulty in deciding matters of history and law.”
Not really. If natural born at one time meant only children of two citizen parents I guarantee that at the same time children of the soil were not automatically citizens at birth. The original Framers probably intended the children of two citizens to be eligible, but not because the term “natural born” itself means “born of two citizen parents”. No, it means “citizen from birth”. Just so happens that all citizens from birth at the time were born of citizen parents. But if that ever were to change (and it did!), all new people would be natural born without the meaning of the phrase changing.
“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...”
The original Framers are irrelevant. The 14th amendment currently controls who’s a citizen from birth.
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Sorta goes against how Birthers insist native and natural born are two different statuses.
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”
I’ve never understood this quote. The 14th amendment most emphatically DOES NOT say anything of the sort. He may have intended it to, but it does not in fact. Unless he thinks the “under the jurisdiction thereof” phrase excludes children born with dual citizenship. But in that case, not only would they not be eligible to be president, they’d also be ineligible for U.S. citizenship. SCOTUS has ruled, and I agree with them, that children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parentage are U.S. citizens. Sorta stands in the face of that quote.
Then why didn't the 14th Amendment say that?
Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
But Chief Justice Waite does not go on to specifically define natural-born citizen, does he? He does not say that those born in the U.S. of foreign parents are natural born citzens. He also does not say that they are not. So Minor v. Happersett proved nothing. Other than a woman couldn't vote.