The following is an excerpt from Leo Donofrio’s online site ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Please note in the second paragraph the Supreme Court says “...The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that...”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
*****************************
So, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with natural born citizenship.
The Constitutional Congress used Emmerich de Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, as their primary source for constructing our constitution. That is the source of the ‘natural born Citizen’ definition.
Donofrio argues convincingly that SCOTUS must make a determination on this issue of natural born citizenship. I concurr.
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. Of course, by "the same rule" he means the criterion was where the child is born -- that is what was the same, but in the U.S. it applied to being a citizen, not a subject. How sad it is for us that we aren't even sure what the qualifications for president are in this country! To me, this is scandalous. I agree that SCOTUS should rule on it. But without a case, it won't. I can only surmise that it was considered too volatile last year, and so out of fear, McCain and the Republicans decided not to do it.