Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. That is the legal definition of the term, and is the definition that has been used by the Supreme Court in many cases. The issue is not only if Obama was born in Hawaii, but that his father was NOT a US citizen. Obama admits on his own fight the smears website, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
If Obama was a “Natural born citizen”, he would NOT be subject to the laws of a foreign nation. He was a British subject the moment he was born, and he is NOT eligible for the Office of President.
Feel free to post it three times, but it isn’t the legal definition of the term. It might be what the founders meant, but they didn’t spell it out, and therefore left it open to interpretation. There has not been a legal definition that the court has ruled definitely on, or this wouldn’t be a question, because everyone would have known for sure that Obama couldn’t have run for president.(And yes, I know there are other things that they didn’t spell out; arms, treason, for example) and it still doesn’t change the fact that there is wiggle room in the definition of NBC. Until the USSC says in unambiguous language who is and who is not a NBC, there is room for argument.
I have already noted this and the rest of your post elsewhere on numerous occasions and do not disagree. So let me further clarify the points I was trying to make.
Obama’s birthplace need not be known to prove he is not a Natural Born Citizen(NBC) as referenced in Article II, section 1 of the constitution. The constitution does not define the term, but the birthplace is being used by press and Dems as a distraction to what is blatantly clear - his father is a foreigner-I think we agree on this.
There is absolutely no question that a child born on American soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the USA,to parents who are both citizens is a NBC entitled under the constitution to be president once attaining the age of 35 and being a resident for 14 years. We agree.
That the Supreme Court has noted the acceptance of this class of citizens is true. However the Supreme Court has also noted a dispute regarding other classes of people, and has not ruled about them.
For example in minor vs happersett, the court noted that there was no doubt about the children born to citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the USA, but noted that “children born within jurisdiction with out reference to the citizenship of their parents, as to this class there have been doubts.”
The court noted that it was not necessary to resolve these doubts in the case before them (it was a suffrage case), and proceeded to ignore the issue.
Also questioned over the years was whether children born overseas to 2 citizen parents could qualify. Is a child born to an unwed citizen mother, on US soil, eligible? Could Gov. Jindal qualify? ETC. ETC. Some say yes, some say no.
I researched this issue about 2 years ago, so I don't even remember all of the various things I read, but was wondering if you could tell me which Supreme Court rulings have stated that the term NBC for presidential eligibility was reserved EXLUSIVELY for a person born of 2 citizen parents on US soil? I would very much like to read them, as I did not find any.
Also, I was wondering which source you used to determine that the “legal definition” of NBC is “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
I would like to be able to cite that authority when I encounter people who believe that all that is needed is for someone to be born on US soil to be considered eligible for president.
I believe the framers meant that the president should be born to parents who were both US citizens, and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
To me, this would include children born to US diplomats and others stationed overseas in service to the USA, as well as those within the continental mainland and territories.
However, just because you and I agree on the term NBC, does not mean that there are not other classes of citizens that some people think should also be qualified, nor have those issues been settled, and the debate goes back to the 1700’s.
Congress has further muddled the issue during the years with its various statutes pertaining to NBC in particular and citizenship in general. Hence, there are unresolved issues pertaining to the NBC definition, so I can not say that it is a settled issue, with out being a least a little disingenuous.