Six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment there was case brought to the Supreme Court referred to as Minor v. Happersett (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162) In that decision, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of natural born citizen, but did not define it. SCOTUS actually stated that the definition of “natural born citizen” was not defined in the Constitution. Since this decision was post-14th amendment, anyone hoping to hang their hat on the 14th to justify their “interpretation” of natural born citizen is whistling in the dark.
From Minor v. Happersett:
“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.”
Notice the next to the last sentence. What this says is that if both your parents were US citizens and you were born in the US you’re definitely a natural born citizen. If not, there are “doubts” that you are. Since Obama claims his father was O senior, there are “constitutional” doubts about his being a natural born citizen.
This is a subject that has to get to the Supreme Court and they must define the term “natural born citizen” - and we have to live with their decision.
From http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/
Leo Donofrio talks about the removal of a usurper president:
“... Mr. Galatin was elected to the US Senate from Pennsylvania in 1793 and it was later found that he had never become naturalized. The Senate again voided his election stating that the election wasn’t just “voidable”, but that since there was no way to cure the qualification defect… the election was completely “void”… it didn’t happen.
It’s important to note that the first quo warranto statue enacted by Congress didn’t take effect until 1787 [typo - that should read “1878”] so in 1793 and 1849 the Senate chose to void the elections of the two usurpers.
So here we have precedent for Congressional authority to remove Senators other than by expulsion. Usurpation of office resulted in elections being voided and the Senate record do not even record usurpers as having been members of the Senate. If Congress can remove a usurper to the Senate without expelling him, this provides evidence that Congress can remove a usurper to the Presidency without impeaching him.
It appears there is no possible separation of powers issue to confront. If a person occupying the Presidency is found to be a usurper, then his Presidency is a fiction to be voided in history and his name removed from the record books. A usurper isn’t allowed to have been said to be President. His occupation is a fiction.
In the Galatin case the Senate made clear that since there was no possible way the failure to qualify could be cured, then the election was a total fiction and is void, not voidable, but void, as if it never happened.”
I highly recommend the naturalborncitizen blog. Leo Donofrio is a lawyer and has done EXTENSIVE research on the natural born citizen issue. If you’re looking for information on this subject, this is a great place to start. Whether you love or hate Leo, the research is solid.
I believe you are making too much of the "parents who were it's citizens" being plural. I believe common-law definition applies if either of the parents are citizens, and does not require both parents to be citizens.
Congress has tried to legislate citizenship issues for children born outside the country, establishing rules from time to time that said that if both parents were citizens, you were a citizen, but if only one parent was a citizen that parent had to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years, at least 5 of which were past the age of 16.
But those laws were for children born outside the country.
They have also legislated children born in the country when neither parent was a citizen.
But the court ruling covers the case where the child is born on US soil and at least one parent is a citizen.
BTW, I appreciate the information about the voiding of elections. I might argue that the action of the Senate voiding an election was essentially an expulsion, but that would be semantics.
But the courts have ruled that under the constitution each body has the right to decide it’s membership. For Obama, being President, I don’t think they coudl simply “void” the election, I think if it was a congressional act they would have to use impeachment. I’m not sure who would have the authority to void the election, but I would guess it would have to be the courts.
And I’m not sure which election would be voided, I would think the presidential ballof of the electors, since the november election was for electors, not for candidates.
bump