I understand what you are saying BUT please cite for me the USSC ruling that proves this to be the case.
That is the problem, we have no definitive case to point to that says specifically a Natural Born Citizen is a person who is born on American Soil, from two parents who were also born on American soil.
It’s for this reason Obama and his defenders have been able to play this game with the NBC requirement.
Granted, we have the writings of our founders. We have opinions written by the courts and of others who’ve discussed, at length, what a NBC is. We also have changes in our laws that provide for NBC status for two members of the military who have a child overseas while serving their country.
We have to have a court ruling, a final opinion from the USSC that gives clear meaning to exactly what it takes for a person to claim NBC status. I fear if that ruling was asked of our USSC today, they will play with the precedence, writing of the founders and past court opinion to assure Obama qualifies.
I agree, there is no definitive case and we should have a ruling from SCOTUS. They appear to be reluctant, however. But I want to remind everyone that Freedom of Choice isn’t defined in the Constitution, either. And how many millions of babies have been aborted?
There is nothing to stop the joint Houses of Congress with coming up with a definition of who is a natural born Citizen and a process after candidates are chosen but prior to elections being held, to vet them thoroughly.
(The following is from Leo Donofrio’s website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ )
* * * * * * * *
The most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett (1874) – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
“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.”
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 AFTER THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
* * * * * *
The 14th amendment, which is in the Constitution, has nothing to do at all with who is a natural born citizen. It deals strictly with native born.
My understand is a Natural Born Citizen (which refers to the office of President only) is one who is born on US soil from parents who are US citizens. In other words, the parents must be US citizens, not natural born US citizens themselves.
If Obama’s father had become a US citizen PRIOR to Obama’s birth, then Obama would be a Natural Born Citizen IF of course he was also born on US soil, ie Hawaii.