[1rudeboy]

Ask Mr. Levin to explain Minor vs. Happersett (1874).

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 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.

[NonValueAdded]

Yes, I would love to get a good explanation of that. Levin could have done so and it is disappointing that he did not. Many "birthers" are looking for just that: a definition of exactly what "natural born" versus "native born" and plain citizen really mean. And add to that, someone who actually is responsible for enforcing that Constitutional Clause. We now know it is not the FEC although they have strongly hinted that they can. To sum it up, give us clarity!

[SoJoCo]

What's to explain? In the Minor decision did the court specifically say that those born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents were not natural-born citizens?

[NJ_Tom]

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 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.

Notice that the underlined raises the possibility that these might be citizens, but it definitely does not include them in the class of "natives, or natural-born citizens."