An interesting read but I disagree. Natural Born Citizen means anyone who receives citizenship by birth, and not through a naturalization process.
I get this from two documents by John Jay and Hamilton provided on pg 888-889 of this paper, I think they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone born a US citizen who didn’t renounce that citizenship, can be US president.
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
Welcome to Free Republic.....
I think the case is compelling that it requires a person be a citizen without reliance upon any law.
That is, both parents being citizens, and birth where no other jurisdiction exists.
I concur, Natural born is the opposite of Naturalized. There are citizens and non-citizens. Of the citizens, you are either natural born or naturalized. This is not rocket science people.
I don’t no who this Jill Pryor is; her conclusions are nothing but Bull Crap. I doubt anyone has taken her writing in the Yale Law Journal seriously. It appears to me you pick a Loon to cite.
From the article:
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.
The following is a funny and true story shared by KC Williams who teaches AP Government at Santa Fe High School. In one of KC's classes, they were discussing the qualifications to be president of the United States. It was pretty simple - the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age. However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president. KC and the class were just taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, 'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?'
There are what, three paragraphs, on those pages 888-889 in that article that refer to the Jay and Hamilton letters? Moreover the Hamilton letter is not light shedding the way you seem to say. Hamilton uses the phrase "born a citizen". Well -- that is NOT the phrase, not the term of art that ended up being adopted. Jay meant something else! More restrictive -- natural allegiance, imo.
And speaking of opinion that legal review article is overweighed with it! Even the footnotes are opinions. It is an article very weak review of historic detail, and the why of that weakness is clear: The author forced fit facts to theory, and did so very myopically. Yale, eh?