Replies

I have previously read you links, but unfortunately “a citizen at birth” may or may not be “natural born”, a judge could decide it anyway they want. True it is a weak argument, but it is an issue nevertheless.

Historically the first Congress passed legislation stating....”and the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:”....

The second Congress has different language:

“and the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits or jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States:”...

The seventh Congress has even different language:

“and the children of person whow now are or who have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jusrisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:”...

it goes on further..”And be it further enacted, that all acts heretofore passed respecting naturalization,be,and the same are hereby repealed.”

The important question is why did the first Congress include the term ‘natural born citizen” and then not use it again? Was it on purpose or was it by error? Where else in US law is the term ‘natural born citizen” used other than in the requirements for the President? When Congress passed other laws relating to citizenship at birth including in the Canal Zone why did they say citizen at birth instead of natural born citizen?

This whole paragraph poses questions that have apparently stumped our greatest legal minds over time. If you believe the people that continue to bring the subject up at every chance they get. The most simple answer I have is that our founding fathers weren't as divine and infallible as we like to believe. They thought it was clear, but as you point out just one year later in 1790 the 1st congress pass a law specifically to cover this, so they quickly realized they blew it.

Here's what I consider the final arbitrator of this subject. USC 8 Section 1401 says: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:" And number one on the list is: "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Now, before you point out that it doesn't say 'natural born' consider the paradox created using your logic.

Since anyone born inside the US is a citizen at birth and your argument is that a citizen at birth does not mean natural born and therefore cannot be president... just how did 40 of our presidents become POTUS?

Personally, I think dropping that into the lap of any judge is a winning argument.