Of course, that will be debated too. Legislature or Courts? We can be certain that it WON'T be by amateur Constitutional 'scholars' opining on it here. IMHO, SCOTUS will make it official that the current acting interpretation in the 'modern political environment' of "natural born citizen" = "born citizen" (i.e. child of an American citizen, including a mother named Eleanor).
would you accept the decision like it or not ???
Yes, I would. What will be will be.
OK
well on another note...
I have been reading an old book online doing some family reasearch...
and I just happened to find just now a paper written in 1900 about Letters of Denisation etc (endowed citizenship) before the American Revolution, back when we were still English...
The author refers to documents giving various examples how some men gained citizenship after coming from France etc to the English colony..
One paper was “a Certificate of Nicholas Bayard Esq, then mayor of New York, dated the 7th of September, 1687, certifying that Stephen De Lancy had been an inhabitant one year and three months and had taken the Oath of Allegiance as directed in an Act of general Assembly made in the year 1683, entitled “An Act for naturalizing all those of foreign nations, then inhabiting within this province and professing Christianity and in pursurance of a proclamation of the Governor and Council”, of the 14th June then past, and that he had caused the said Stephen De Lancy to be enrolled.”
The author goes on to admit as mark levion did that he had not actually read the proclamation for himself but he wont forward an opinion anyway...
He continued further on “I suppose the “Act of Assembly” referred to , which has two enacting clauses,
the one that all foreigners of what nation soever, professing Christianity, that then were actual inhabitants within this province and had taken or subscribed, or that should take or subscribe the Oath of Allegiance, were thereby naturalized.
The other, that all foreigners of what nation soever, professing Christianity, that at any time after the said 1683, should come into this province, with an intent to become his Majesty’s subjects, and to dwell, settle, and inhabit accordingly, and take the Oath of Allegiance to his Majesty, and fidelity to his Royal Highness the Proprietor &c.
Every such person shall in all respects be deemed as his Majesty’s natural born subjects &c.”
(Collections of the Huguenot Society, (1886) Pp406, 407)
Now isnt that interesting...
a naturalized citizen became a “natural born citizen” in the early colony of New York..
However the author does go on to wonder if this formality was enough and if a person who has not been naturalized an Englishman by Act of Perliament in England itself can sit and act as a member of the Legislature in the colonies, and that Lord Cook in his “Fourth Part of the Institute of the Laws of England, Page 47, says, an alien cannot be elected of the Parliament, because he is not the king’s leige subject” and that the Letter of Denison was not enough to make the man a citizen of England.
he did however suggest the letter was enough to grant the person permission to obtain land in the colony (my own Huguenot ancestors had to do this to buy land)
so there is a lot written over the years about whether or not a person was eligible to hold office etc if he was not born in this country...