Replies

“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 ....”

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.

The 14th Amendment is the cause of all of these confusions with citizenship. By the way, the 14th amendment has the most illegal shady constitutionally repugnant ratification process of any amendment to the US constitution. Before the 14th amendment there was no need to define Natural born Citizenship because citizenship was received in only two possible ways, you were naturalized or you were born a Natural born Citizen to US parents. (There was no gray space about a child's citizenship because a wife ALWAYS had the same citizenship as her husband).

Court interpretations of the 14th Amendment introduced the confusion that made it unclear what a Natural Born Citizen was. After the courts started literally mangling the definition no one could really be certain what an NBC was. Was it someone born on US soil, was it someone of one US parent or two US parents, or a person born to a US parent on US soil etc? So you see its not failure of the founders to specify what an NBC is that is our problem. It was perfectly obvious back then. The problem is that we have allowed activist courts to interpret it in such a crazy way that we now can't even agree on who is a citizen anymore.

It seems that you are still confusing citizenship and natural born citizenship. The Constitution clearly states that no except a natural born citizen is eligible to be President. You ask, “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?”Again, “Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” It does not say that the childs parents had to be married. How could a child that was born overseas qualify? If the child was not born in our nation, to citizen parents, then the child is not a natural born citizen. How could Jindal qualify? Was he born in our nation to citizen parents? No, his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, so he is not a natural born citizen.