The Supreme Court has never ruled on the meaning or application of the "natural born" clause in any context; and there is in fact a fair amount of historical material demonstrating that the meaning of the clause when implemented was a citizen at birth, born within the limits of the geographical territory of the sovereign of the country of which he was born a citizen.
Having been peripherly involved in the legal issue at the time of Goldwater's candidacy, there is no doubt that the unanimous view of the Constitutional Bar of that era was that the phrase meant born in the geographical limits of the several states.
I believe that remained the view of the increasingly narrow group of lawyers who regularly argue cases to the Court--there was widespread discussion in DC assuming and acknowledging that McCain was not eligible to serve as President because he was born in Panama. That discussion did not reach the press or talk radio because the overwhelming view of both the press and the legal community was that McCain had no chance to win--he was simply a placeholder; his ineligibility made no difference because he wasn't going to get elected.
And both the press and the lawyers ignored the possible issue with Obama because it was assumed that if he had not been born in Hawaii, the defect would have surfaced, either in his Senate campaign (which it did where it was ignored) or in the primary (in which the Clinton's botched their handling of the issue).
Observe that even Rush and Hannity treated this as a fringe issue with no merit until the later days.
My own reaction to this is that they are now losing control of the issue--whether it happens fast enough to affect the Electoral College outcome is anybody's guess; but the issue now has legs and will result in a Constitutional crisis unless it gets resolved.
It wouldn't surprise me if a package of additional fraudulent documents appears in the near future together with a full court media press to substantiate them.
I am not a lawyer but I have read the 1790 and 1795 laws and summaries of various citizenship cases that have arisen in federal courts over the years. It seems to me that if you are a U.S. citizen, then you are either “natural-born” or you have been “naturalized.” There is no third category. Since neither Goldwater nor McCain went through the “naturalization” process, then - according to my admittedly lay reading of the laws - they're either not U.S. citizens or they're natural-born citizens.
I posted the following on aanother thread and I am copying it here since it applies specifically to what Donifrio stated in one of his taped broadcasts.
From what I have read since this all came out a couple of days ago, the following paragraphs I think summarize the gist of the Donofrio suit.
There is no definition of the term “natural born” anywhere that can supercede what is contained in the Consitution itself. No law, statute, etc. can amend the U.S. Constitution, since it is the Supreme law of the land. (Or at least it is suppoesed to be.) Only an amendment can change what was originally writen in the constitution.
The only place the term “natural born” is defined (that can be considered legal) is within the Constitution itself. It is in the section refering to the president and that definition must be inferred by the fact that the founding fathers by adding the only exception to the “natural born” clause. The one exception allows for citizens at the time the constitution was adopted to be eligible to be President as well as “natural born” citizens.
The inference is pretty clear since the Founding Fathers were not “natural born” citizens because they were born as British subjects. This enabled them to be the early leaders of this country and get it started on the path they had laid out, but to deny the future leaders from having divided loyalties by birth. Hence to be a natural born citizen you must be born on U.S. soil and not have the possibility of foreign citizenship at birth to any other country.
Please correct me if any of you others who have read his suit feel my interpretation is missing something, but I think it sums up what Donofrio’s stance regarding the term “natural born” citizenship status.
I would note that when I studied the Constitution in grade school as a child, this is pretty close to the example my teacher provided to us. I will explain that in another post.
This is how my teacher explained the diferent types of citizens to us when I was a child. First she told us that there were three types of citizenship status by U.S. birth or parentage, by naturalization, and natural born which was by both parentage and birth combined. (Donofrio mentions four, but he just separated the first category into two.)
In my example Mrs. Smith was born in Germany and is still a German citizen. Mrs. Smith is married to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was born in Texas, and his parents are U.S. citizens too, so he is a “natural born” citizen. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a son born in the United States. The son is a citizen by birth because he was born in the United States but he is not a “natural born” citizen because his parents each bestow their citizenship on the child, so the son can not grow up to be President. Mrs. Smith later becomes a U.S. Citizen. She is a Naturalized citizen. The son, however, still can’t grow up to be President since at birth he had divided loyalties and can never be considered a “natural born” citizen.
Now if both Mr. and Mrs. Smith were both German citizens, but were living in the United States, their child would still be a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil, but he is still not a natural born citizen because both is parents are German citizens, and therefore their citizenship is bestowed on their child.
If Mr. Smith was a U.S. citizen and Mrs. Smith was a German citizen and they lived in Germany when their son was born, their son would be a U.S. citizen by his father’s parentage or by blood, since the father bestowed his U.S. Citizenship on his son. The son could not be president, however, because the mother also bestows her citizenship on the child and because he was born on foreign soil.
I hope this helps people to understand the different types of citizenship. In summary you need two parents to be U.S. Citizens at the time of your birth and you must be born on U.S. soil to be a “natural born” citizen.
Donofrio’s case rests on Obama’s British and/or Kenyan citizenship by birth as the reason he is not qualified to serve as President. He claims that it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in the U.S. because his father bestowed foreign citizenship on him at birth so while he would be likely be considered a U.S. citizen even though his mother was only 18, he is not a natural born citizen because his father was a citizen of a foreign country at the time of his birth.
The Socialist party candidate was born on foreign soil by two foreign parents, so he clearly can’t be qualified even though he is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Donofrio’s suit further claims that even though McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, he was born on foreign soil, therefore he is a citizen by blood but not a “natural born” citizen.
I think I have stated it all correctly for those of you who can’t get on to Donofrio’s web page or listen to the tapes. I hope this helps. If any of the Freepers interpret things differently that I did, please feel free to state what you think. I promise I won’t be offended if I didn’t state something quite right.