Replies

Nothing in our Constitution allows the Congress to dominate intrastate commerce, yet it is common in US Law and Supreme Court rulings.

The difference being that there is a distinct, defined definition concerning the powers of the Federal Government.

There is no such definition for the term "Natural Born" and additionally, the experts and definitive sources in context of the time of the writing of the constitution and a couple of decades after the writing of the constitution do not agree on the 2 US Parent meaning as well.

You are comparing apples and tire irons.

You probably WANT it to be true to prove that Obama is ineligible, so to be honest, it also has to be true about Senator Cruz, right?

You probably WANT it to be true to prove that Obama is ineligible, so to be honest, it also has to be true about Senator Cruz, right?

I believe it to be true; according to Blackstone [here]:

As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.

Clearly the state of natural born is not a product of naturalization; to claim that it is is to claim that the Congress can alter the Constitution by normal legislative acts (i.e. without amendment) which would defeat the purposes both of having a written constitution and of defining some class of citizen of which naturalization ruled over.

Which is why I also doubt the eligibility of both Obama and Cruz.

When in doubt, taking the most stringent definition is usually the best option: everything that fits within the strict-subset by nature must fit within the containing super-set, but the reverse is certainly not true.

Do you have sources showing the contemporaneous meaning of “natural born” wasn’t referring to both parents being citizens? Most of what I’ve heard was that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution “natural born” meant exactly that: both parents.

I have found this more interesting a concept over the past few years, on a less than august level than eligibility to serve as POTUS. My son in law was born in the US of European immigrant parents who did not take US citizenship till a few years ago. He was raised in a home where they spoke both English and (more so) their native language, and he was raised in the customs and traditions of the parents’ homeland. Not a bad thing! He has dual citizenship. He is a very bright honors graduate of an Ivy League school. YET, culturally, he is really NOT American. So many little things that a “native born” American just KNOWS he has to ask about.

There is a reason the Framers chose that ONE place in the Constitution to require not just that the office holder be a citizen, but a “natural born” citizen as they understood that term at the time. They wanted someone as POTUS who had a 100% American mentality that you just don’t get until (at least) the 2nd generation.