Alexander Porter Morse wrote that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.” In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.
In ‘The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentenial Year; The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement’ by
J Michael Medina writes that “Professor Morse, in a ground-breaking article on the issue, defined the natural born citizen as: “One whose citizen-ship is established by the jurisdiction of which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acqired by choice of residencein this country.”
In the closing statement the writer, J Michael Medina states “In any event, the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the absolute requirement that the President be a natural born citizen.”
Again in 2006, AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un-American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Consti-tution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-ble for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, 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 Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 5 (Claytor’s Pub. Unabridged Ed. 1827). Thus, a person born to parents whose covenant allegiance to a nation had previously been established was a “natural born citizen,” born into the civil covenant, just like a child born into the marriage covenant of his father and mother. Such a person need not swear allegiance to become a citizen, for his allegiance is determined by birth.
Note again, amending the Constitution. As I have stated there has been no Constitutional amendment allowing for anyone other then a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ to be eligible for the Presidency of the United States.
So regardless of what ever case law, you can attempt to pawn off, nothing in the Constitution has changed.
That post is too incoherent to be able to discern who in it is saying what, or what the actual point is you are trying to make. Please, could you provide at least an argument that tries to connect the dots?
That post is too incoherent to be able to discern who in it is saying what, or what the actual point is you are trying to make. Please, could you provide at least an argument that tries to connect the dots?