Apuzzo writes:
“Third, most of the lawyers who concluded that McClellan was a “natural born Citizen” said he was so because under the Constitution there are only “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens, and since McClellan was not a naturalized citizen, he must necessarily be a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Dr. Conspiracy makes no mention of the fact that none of those lawyers even cited and quote from let alone addressed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which clearly stated just five years earlier that, with citizenship not descending from parents but only given by statute to the children born out of the United States to citizen parents, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are naturalized “at birth.””
Let me take a devil’s advocate position for a moment. What would you answer to the question of “but what is the difference between ‘natural born’ and ‘naturalized at birth’?” On the face of it, the two phrases sound synonymous. One is made natural the moment one is born.
One is by statute, the other requires no statute.
That was covered...right before the part you posted...
“Third, most of the lawyers...
2 comes before 3.
Second, because Obama needs either the Fourteenth Amendment or statute to remove the alienage with which he was born by being born to a non-U.S. citizen father, he is in effect at best a naturalized citizen “at birth,” who automatically becomes a “citizen of the United States” and needs no further naturalization after birth.
Let me take a devil’s advocate position for a moment. What would you answer to the question of “but what is the difference between ‘natural born’ and ‘naturalized at birth’?” On the face of it, the two phrases sound synonymous. One is made natural the moment one is born.
According to the U.S. Constitution, there are only two different types of citizenship classes recognized by its law: Citizen of the United States, and Natural Born Citizen.
The Constitution is quite clear. Amendment XIV declared those born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and its territories and those naturalized are one in the same. It was quite intentional.
Amendment XIV did not say that those born in the U.S. were Natural Born Citizens because it would go against its very definition. The best example of this was Dred Scott. He was not considered a citizen at the time of his birth, nor was his father or mother. Therefore, had Amendment XIV been ratified with verbiage stating he was a Natural Born Citizen, it would have set this definition in stone. It did not, because it could not.
One can go a step further and ask "what is a Natural Born Citizen"? By the U.S. Constitution, someone born in the U.S. without citizen parents aren't Natural Born. Dred Scott is the prime example.
At this juncture, the only three remaining options are (1) one born in the U.S. to a citizen father and a citizen mother, (2) one born in the U.S. to a citizen father and a foreign mother, and (3) one born in the U.S. to a foreign father and citizen mother. When the Constitution was ratified, option (3) never occurred, and therefore was never valid as a form of Natural Born Citizenship.
Is this valid now? That is a question for the U.S. Supreme Court. On face value, it is difficult to predict what they would say. However, at least 5 U.S. Supreme Court decisions have paved precidence, all of which state the father as the deciding factor in natural law citizenship.