The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants..., declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States'By this definition, therefore, anyone born in the US, even of non-citizen parents, is a natural born citizen of the United States.
The website's "Natural Born Citizen Chart" claims the the Constitutional definition of "Natural Born Citizen" requires that the person be "Born in the U.S. mainland" of parents who "Both are U. S. Citizens". This is not true. The term is not defined in the Constitution: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..." The site claims that this term is also defined in law, but offers only a Swiss source document predating the Revolution:
Emmerich de Vattel's explanation of "Natural Born Citizen" given in his 1759 benchmark work, used, and so often quoted, by the framers of the U. S. Constitution, makes the understanding simple, explicit, clear, definite, exact, precise, and strict. In the CITIZENS AND NATIONS, paragraph #212, de Vattel says: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."This statement is obviously in conflict with the concept of the US as a nation of immigrants, and with US law, specifically the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.The issue of his father's citizenship is therefore irrelevant, and the only issue in question is whether Obama was, in fact, born in the US.
Natural born citizen is not well defined at all anywhere. How much case law is there on it?
This is exactly why I wanted the Supreme Court to rule whether 0 is a natural born citizen for purposes of being President. The Supreme Court chickened out
Take a look at "Perkins v. Elg" Natural born citizen is not mentioned http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/
The special term "Natural Born Citizen" is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution contains the clause:
| “ | No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. |
_______________________________________________
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were born as British citizens in their colony here
Obama was born a British/Kenyan citizen
Washington and Jefferson were eligible to be President despite being born British citizens .... Only because they were US citizens at the time the US Constitution was Adopted. Obama is not eligible for that exemption
I'll bet if Obama was born here of two British citizens and was thus a British citizen, that you would still call him a natural born citizen. I sure wouldn't
In nutshell——
In the USAs early days there was a special exemption for those born as British citizens to be eligible to be President. That exemption is gone. Obama was born a British citizen therefor cannot be President