The 14 th amendment did not address Natural born Citizenship as required by Article 2. The wording “Subject to the jurisdiction” refers to the allegiance of the parents. If a person born in the U.S. has parents that owe their allegiance to the U.S. , then they are citizens.
Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, there are only two classes of US citizens under the law of the land: (1)Citizens at birth (which is identical to natural born citizens) and (2)naturalized citizens. Citizens at birth can become president, naturalized citizens cannot become president.
Here’s a link to the current law of the land on who is a “National and Citizen of the United States at birth:”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
The following is the key relevant section of the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in the 1898 case of “US v Wong Kim Ark,” the landmark post 14th Amendment decision on US citizenship:
“The 14th Amendment, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by THE MERE FACT OF BIRTH under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”
The Supreme Court went on to declare in the Wong Kim Ark decision that: “The evident intention, and the necessary effect of the submission of this case to the decision of the Court upon facts agreed to by both parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are carrying on business, and not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States. For reasons above stated, this court is of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
You’re simply wrong, James. Jurisdiction has various meanings; you’re using the wrong definition. Allegiance. Loyalty. Subjectship. Citizenship. That’s the point.
jamese777: Your own quote says “parents”. Plural. The person in question, born to two non-citizens, was recognized as a “citizen”. A common citizen. NOT a natural born citizen.
The 14th amendment did NOT change the definition of natural born citizen. IF it did, then why decades later were scholars and journalists writing otherwise?
How about a link to this Wong Kim Ark decision so that we know the source of the quotes you provide? Are these quotes part of the RULING or are they extraneous comments by, perhaps, dissenters to the ruling?
Why, in your quote, do they mention that the parents are permanently domiciled in the U.S.? Was Obama’s purported father permanently domiciled here? No. As a matter of fact, neither was his “mother”.