My bottom line: A formal decision of the Supreme Court, spending page after page describing why the common law definition of citizenship should be applied to the Constitution is vastly more authoritative than the personal opinion of a single congressman, no matter how important he might be historically.
I have never seen a single convincing reason given why natural born citizen has any other meaning than native born citizen or citizen at birth. From what I can tell the two NBCs have frequently been used interchangeably in judicial decisions, legislation and regulations.
I respect your opinion, and certainly your right to it, but I respectfully disagree.
I will of course support any definitive judgment reached by the Supreme Court, the obvious body to settle such questions of constitutional interpretation.
I will admit that there is an appealing "tidiness" to the "native born" reliance on Jus soli to exclusively confer "Natural Born Citizen" status.
Yes indeed, everything seems to fit together very well...that is... until one looks a little deeper into the historical underpinnings of our break from "mother" England, at which point things get a little messy.
The problem with exclusive reliance on Jus soli is that it reeks with the stench of feudalism!
The founding fathers intended for their posterity (that's us) to be sovereign-Citizens -- not Subjects of a sovereign!
They did not intend us to become surfs.
Words have consequences.
Notice the prefix "SUB" in Subject:
Origin: 1275–1325; (adj.) < Latin subjects, placed beneath, inferior, open to inspection, orig. past participle of subicere to throw or place beneath, make subject,... etc.
The elitist want to make the sovereign-Citizens -- We "the people" -- their subjects!
President Abe Lincoln got it right when he said at Gettysburg Pennsylvania, 1863:
... "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of THE PEOPLE, by THE PEOPLE, for THE PEOPLE, shall not perish from the earth."
(emphases mine)
How many have died so that "we" the sovergn "people" should be free rather than 'sub'jugated to a potentate?
No... words have power!
We are Free and Sovereign Citizens!
A Citizen has unalienable -- Natural (God given) -- rights.
The "rights" of a subject are at the disposal of his sovereign, and may be alienated at the pleasure of same.
No... a Subject and a Citizen are to different animals.
Take a guess which one is the mouse and which one is the man?
STE=Q
Maybe John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and the Constitution of the United States of America will convince you:
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "
This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective "natural" making it "natural born Citizen of the United States" for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton's proposed "born a Citizen". Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:
"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 Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Convincing enough for ya?