Replies

I think it needs to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court at some point so it can be put to rest one way or the other. If it had been decided by the court in 1800, perhaps in 1900, it probably would have been decided in the way that LJ and others here argue.

I have read the background history of the phrase “natural born citizen” and think their interpretation is likely what the founders intended. But it is a somewhat vague phrase, and not really defined elsewhere in US law or even mentioned anywhere. You have to go to a bunch of 3rd party theoretical writings to figure out what the founders intended. I read all that stuff during the initial debate over Obama’s citizenship (even granting his claim of being born in Hawaii to an American mother), and was convinced by the argument that it required being born on US soil to two American citizens. But it is an argument that gets deep into the weeds.

So, it is subject to some interpretation by individual justices. Some might say that it would be someone who is born a citizen on US soil, not naturalized later or born in a foreign land to US parents. There could be other interpretations, and explanations of why the phrase was used. I would disagree, but it is not open and shut like many other terms in the Constitution are.

So, I could see even good justices, like Gorsuch or Alito, being less strict in their view of “natural born citizen” than we would. The main thing we need is that this issue be decided, so that it can be put to rest and so these debates over Ted Cruz, Kumala, and Obama can come to an end. This is a subject that needs to be clear before we have to deal with it again.

There are some here who will pound the table and deny that the issue is ambiguous and they have researched and found the correct answer and any other is impossible. Those people have found the most valid interpretation, in my opinion, but it is not the only one that can be reasonably made, despite the gnashing of teeth.