Both of you are in need of education, which I will attempt to provide, at least at the elementary level. Controlling cases on this issue are scarce as hen’s teeth, probably because no previous Presidential candidate so egregiously challenged the supremacy of the Constitution.
But, in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court quoted at length from a prior case, Minor v. Happerset (1874), which I quote in full:
” ‘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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
This represents the Constitutional definition of both a “natural-born” and a “native-born” citizen. An irrational and legally unsupported view has grown up in the United States that the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone and everyone born on the territory of the United States. This view is unsupported, wrong, not in accord with legitimate precedent, and dangerous. You will also note that the holding in Minor would bring into question not only the “natural born” citizenship of a person like Obama, but his very citizenship itself.
The Congress may grant citizenship through its powers of naturalization, and we may safely say that it has done so in the cases of individuals who are born in the United States of ONE citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, or to children of US citizen parents born outside the territory of the United States, but Congress absolutely lacks the power to amend the Constitution by means of enacting statute law.
Therefore, contrary to your uninformed but commonly held opinion that there is not a “3rd” class of citizen that is a citizen by birth, but which is not a “natural born” citizen as established by the Constitution, there most definitely IS just such a classification.
A very dear family member, by son, belongs to that class of citizen. He is a US citizen by birth, and has had no other citizenship than this, ever in his life. Yet, he is NOT a “natural-born” citizen, and can never be, because he was not born in the United States. His US citizenship does not derive from the Constitution, but from statue law.
On this issue, I will admit that there is controversy, but that controversy arises not because there is genuine uncertainty, but because there has been a long and unfortunate corruption of public understanding, and a proliferation of confusion in the minds of the muddled public. Despite this, the position you are espousing is profoundly wrong-headed, and factually and legally incorrect.
The courts need to act to introduce much needed clarity on the matter.
” ‘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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
So what about this proves your point exactly? It doesn't provide the "natural born citizen" definition you need. The most it says is "there have been doubts". It doesn't say those doubts are valid, and then it explicity avoids going into it any further.
This doesn't help you.
A logical extreme is a perfectly valid mechanism for establishing a point. That is what this is. All members of set [x] are also members of set [y] does not mean the same thing as Only members of set [x] are members of set [y] or To be a member of set [y] you must be a member of set [x].
"These were natives or natural-born citizens"
Once again we see that the terms are used by the Court interchangeably. Persons who are born to US citizen parents on US soils are natives or natural born citizens. It isn't difficult to parse.
"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."
As to this class there have been doubts. Hmmm. Yes. Doubts. That's a solid legal basis to support your assertion.
"For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
I suppose that means that they agree with you. Or not.
"It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
Not disputed. All children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.
Red Steel: I want to point out to you that the terms 'native' and 'natural born' are used interchangeably in this case (Minor v. Happerset).
"This represents the Constitutional definition of both a 'natural-born' and a 'native-born' citizen."
Not the way you mean it. It provides a definition of the two terms to mean the same thing.
" An irrational and legally unsupported view has grown up in the United States that the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone and everyone born on the territory of the United States. This view is unsupported, wrong, not in accord with legitimate precedent, and dangerous."
While I would support an Amendment that eliminated the 14th Amendment loophole, that isn't what we are discussing. And anything short of that Constitutional Amendment will not survive a challenge as the 14th Amendment would invalidate it. The dangerous thing is the creation of new classes of citizen. What happens when we have other new classes of citizen, some that may vote and some that may not, for example? What happens when they decide that you can't vote?
"You will also note that the holding in Minor would bring into question not only the 'natural born' citizenship of a person like Obama, but his very citizenship itself."
What holding? The holding that says they don't have to make a decision on an opinion that 'some' hold?
"The Congress may grant citizenship through its powers of naturalization, and we may safely say that it has done so in the cases of individuals who are born in the United States of ONE citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, or to children of US citizen parents born outside the territory of the United States, but Congress absolutely lacks the power to amend the Constitution by means of enacting statute law."
The Constitution defines only two classes of citizen: born a citizen or naturalized. Rights do not accrue differently to any of the classes of citizen (the three or more that you claim exist, or the two that really exist) with the sole exception of the ability to become President. The FFs did not document a definition of 'natural born' that was distinct from the 'dictionary definition' as it existed at the time, that definition being the same one in use throughout the entire time from 200 years prior to the COTUS to now, over 200 years later. They did not discuss or debate another definition and they most certainly did not have some alternative consensus definition that differed from the 'dictionary definition.' Had there been any debate or discussion then your argument might have merit. There wasn't. It doesn't. Had there existed at any time a definition substantially different from the 'dictionary definition' it would actually appear in the dictionary. It doesn't. There wasn't. Attempting to redefine 'natural born' in order to strip people of rights granted them by the COTUS is exactly like attempting to redefine 'well regulated' in order to strip people of rights granted them in the COTUS. If you want to do that go get an Amendment passed.
"A very dear family member, by son, belongs to that class of citizen. He is a US citizen by birth, and has had no other citizenship than this, ever in his life. Yet, he is NOT a “natural-born” citizen, and can never be, because he was not born in the United States. His US citizenship does not derive from the Constitution, but from statue law."
Your son was a citizen at birth, is therefore eligible upon achieving the other two required qualifications, and would undoubtedly make a better President than the one we appear about to have shoved down our throats simply due to your influence as a principled and patriotic person. However, you are mistaken in your belief that there are more than the two types, 'natural born' and 'naturalized,' of citizens.