There seems to be deliberate confusion (anybody surprised?) about how the Constitution's “natural born citizen” is defined. And while it is one of the more challenging constitutional terms to pin down imo, here are the basics.
A constitutional clue to understanding what the "natural born citizen" of constitutional clause 2.1.5 means is to have a look at the Constitution's 1.8.10 which references a "Law of Nations."
1.8.10: "Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations [emphasis added];"
2.1.5: "No Person except a natural born Citizen [emphasis added], or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Law of Nations was a French language international law reference by Emmerich de Vattel which was accepted and used by delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Again, this is evidenced by the reference to Law of Nations in the Constitution's 1.8.10.
Simply put, Law of Nations defines natural born citizen as being born on land controlled by a country to parents who are full citizens of that country (my wording).
A quick reference is Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines 'natural born citizen'.
"Quote of section #212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758: "§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens [emphasis added]. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. ""
Since many of the founding fathers may not have actually been born from citizen parents and since several of them were elected as president after the founding documents were created it is apparent that the tells concept of a natural born citizen was not foremost and their mind.
Since then Congress has passed into law which has been signed by duly elected presidents that people like John McCain or Even Ted Cruz can technically be considered natural born. Love it or hate it Obama was ratified and duly seated as president of the United States for not 1 but 2 terms. Precident And legislative law signed by duly elected presidents has become the law of the land as much as I hated trying to reestablish our laws on books written by 17th or 18th century Frenchman is a waste of time.
It will never be litigated and if it did go to the Supreme Court it would be ruled against… that is that tells definition of natural born citizen being the only definition thereof or even fully understood by all the signers of our constitution documents at the time.
It’s a waste of time to keep argue reading about it.
If that is what they meant and by that I mean all the signers of the declaration and the ratifiers of the Constitution then it has fallen into disuse a street and we won’t be rewriting the Constitution in our lifetime.
It is good that you keep the memory of what once was in scope.
But it will never be seen by the American public and that manner ever again. It has been rendered obsolete, though improperly by our legislation, and precedent.
Are we to read this as offences against the Law of Nations committed in neutral territory (e.g., on the high seas), or is this a power to punish offences against the Law of Nations generally?
If it's the latter, how broad a power of Congress is this?
-PJ
Saving