And which Supreme Court case confirmed that? Was the case law before or after the 14th Amendment? Just wondering...
(1) Is that, indeed, the law?
(2)If yes, then is there any controversy at all about the relative citizenships of Obama's parents?
it’s always been the law. the Founder’s didn’t want a British spy sneaking into our executive branch. Ooops, a Britisher from Kenya did!
The term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was derived from “Law of Nations”:
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/VattelsNBC-LawofNations-citizenS.jpg
This is where the term originally came from.
The author’s credentials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel
And which Supreme Court case confirmed that? Was the case law before or after the 14th Amendment? Just wondering...
The Supreme Court has NEVER definitively defined the term "natural born citizen". The closest they ever came was in Minor v. Happersett [88 U.S. 162] in 1875 after the 14th Amendment was ratified [1868]. It said, in part:
" ... 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 ..."
So, a child born on US soil to two parents who are themselves US citizens IS DEFINITELY a natural born citizen. However, the Supreme Court has NEVER made this determination as to a child born on US soil of alien parents - it has merely ruled whether this other type of child is a citizen [he is].
In fact, in Minor v. Happersett, although the Supreme Court acknowledged that a child born on US soil to US citizen parents was a natural born citizen, it DID NOT declare Minor [the plaintiff] to be natural born in the decision. The Supreme Court sidestepped this issue, saying that a natural born citizenship determination was not germaine to the case [which was a voting rights case].
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship, not natural born citizenship. It is improper to construe "citizen" to mean "natural born citizen." If one did that there would be no bar to construing "shall" to mean "shall not." Of course, that wouldn't bother any self-respecting liberal judge.
