The text, as you cited:
“(2.) The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he have attained to the age of thirty file years, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome. The age of the president is sufficient to have formed his public and private character; and his previous domestic residence, is intended to afford to his fellow citizens the opportunity to attain a correct knowledge of his principles and capacity, and to have enabled him to acquire habits of attachment and obedience to the laws, and of devotion to the public welfare.”
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/kent/kent-13.htm
“The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen...As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States”
As happens fairly frequently, we see NBC and native citizen used interchangeably. If this were mathematics, we could say NBC is a subset of native citizen and thus more restrictive, and that is a possible interpretation. However, English isn’t mathematics, and his commentary has native citizen as a requirement imposed by the Constitution, which is only true if they are equivalents.
And why is there this requirement?
“ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office”
Got it. No foreigners. Nothing about native citizen parents, but the prospective President needs to be born in the USA so foreigners won’t try to take over the office that gives orders to the military.
“and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland...”
No foreign entanglements. Got it. Don’t have to worry about the President getting us in a war to support his native country of France, or Kenya, or wherever.
But what we do NOT find here is that the person born in America needs to have both parents born in America. If that had been part of being a NBC, then it would deserve mention in the commentary, instead of being equated with being a ‘native citizen’.
And, as you noted, “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” If Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born in the jurisdiction of the US. Based on his travel and residence, he has continued to hold US citizenship, and has NOT renounced it to become a UK or Kenyan citizen.
I realize you will disagree, but I think my interpretation is every bit as valid as yours, and even more so. More to the point, my interpretation has held sway during the nearly 200 years since...
And you choose the side that supports obama.
Obot.
The Supreme has never interchanged the two - native v. natural born citizens - with the exception after giving background information about where the citizens were born in the US and making note the parents were US citizen. In those cases, they referred to subjects as native born and only after presenting them as natural born citizens. Got it.
Got it. No foreigners. Nothing about native citizen parents, but the prospective President needs to be born in the USA so foreigners won’t try to take over the office that gives orders to the military.
Hello Earth to Ms. Rogers...Earth to Ms. Rogers....
Natives can and do hold allegiances to foreign countries. Natural born citizens do not have that hang up , as they and only they, can legally hold the office of President of the United States.
More to the point, my interpretation has held sway during the nearly 200 years since...
No, incorrect, wrong again, nope, epic fail. This is closer to the point. These Supreme Court cases cite de Vattel's natural born citizen definition which has held sway for 200 year since.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
Furthermore, you didn't address the point that was made which was drones such as you parse & edit the law to fit your warped view of history. Kent cited A2 and then he went on to differentiate between them, those that were natives which included those not born on US soil, but adhered to the revolution and those born after the revolution. Natural born did not exist until the latter. He did NOT say ‘natives born’, he said ‘natives’ AND ‘born’. He clearly was differentiating between the two.
Kent on Aliens:
The statute of 25 Edw. III. stat. 2., appears to have been made to remove / doubts as to the certainty of the common law on this subject, and it declared, that children thereafter born without the ligeance of the king, whose father and mother, at the time of their birth, were natives, should be entitled to the privileges of native subject, except the children of mothers who should pass the sea without leave of their husbands. The statute of 7 Ann, c. 5, was to the same general effect; but the statute of 4 Geo. II. c. 21., required only that the father should be a natural born subject at the birth of the child, and it applied to all children then born, or thereafter to be born. Under these statutes it has been held, that to entitle a child born abroad to the rights of an English natural born subject, the father must be an English subject; and if the father be an alien, the child cannot inherit to the mother, though she was born under the king's allegiance.
The act of Congress of the 14th of April, 1802, establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, affects the issue of two classes of persons: (1.) By the 4th section, it was declared, that" the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States." This provision appears to apply only to the children of persons naturalized, or specially admitted to citizenship ; and there is colour for the construction, that it may have been intended to be prospective, and to apply as well to the case of persons thereafter to be naturalized, as to those who had previously been naturalized. It applies to all the children of " persons duly naturalized," under the restriction of residence and minority, at the time of the naturalization of the parent. The act applies to the children of persons duly naturalized, but does not explicitly state, whether it was intended to apply only to the case where both the parents were duly naturalized, or whether it would be sufficient for one of them only to be naturalized, in order to confer, as of course, the right of citizens upon the resident children, being under age.
It was decided, that children born in the United States, since the recognition of our independence by Great Britain, of parents born here before that time, and continuing to reside here afterwards, were aliens, and could not inherit lands in England. To entitle a child born out of the allegiance of the crown of England, to be deemed a natural born subject, the father must be a subject at the time of the birth of the child ; and the people of the United States ceased to be subjects in the view of the English law, after the recognition of our independence, on the 3d day of September, 1783.
It is all quite enlightening if you take the time to actually read & study the ENTIRE hsitory of the subject which you obviously have no ambition or patriotism to do so. 25 Edw stated that shildren of subjects, no matter where born were themselves subjects aka laws of nature, children follow the condition of the father. Those that stayed in the US, and although born here that remained loyal to England, remained subjects & were not considered as citizens and neither were their children unless at their coming of age they took an oath of allegiance to the US. GET IT?
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA58&id=xAE9AAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false