All of the men who included themselves in the exception clause (the grandfather clause) in the Constitution were born on this continent, but their fathers were not American citizens. If what you are trying to float were definitive, there would appear to have been no need for the exception clause to be written into the Constitution.
Here's a piece of the puzzle copied from the Federalist Papers website:
Mr. Wong Kim Ark was born to parents who, though permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born, nevertheless remained subjects of the Emporer of China. In its decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, SCOTUS clearly articulated a broader scope of the 14th Amendment than had previously been recognized. In doing so, SCOTUS considered it important that Mr. Ark’s parents had demonstrated a clear attachment to the United States. In specifically recognizing Mr. Wong Kim Ark as a U.S. citizen (not a 'natural born citizen') under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS laid down the general rule that any individual (other than children of foreign rulers and diplomats) born on U.S. soil to permanent resident alien parents is a citizen of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment.
Not satisfied with mere citizenship privileges for such individuals based on SCOTUS’s construction of the 14th Amendment, interlocutors now claim that this newly-recognized class of U.S. citizens must also be recognized as Article II, Section 1 “natural born citizens”, fully eligible to run for and assume the office of POTUS. But in order for SCOTUS to endorse such a theory, it will need to do so in a legitimate fashion, in a decision based on the results of an actual case or controversy brought before it, and taking into account all of the circumstances that gave rise to their positive citizenship decision for Mr. Wong Kim Ark, and not just some of them.
That is, if SCOTUS is to be called upon to loosen up the parental citizenship requirement on the one hand (so as to allow at least some individuals born to one or more non-citizen parents to assume the office of POTUS), it will need to hold these new members of the “natural born citizen” class to the special requirement that they be born to two permanent resident parents. Needless to say, and unfortunately for Mr. Obama, this is a result that does not necessarily accommodate individuals born to foreign fathers present in the United States on temporary student visas.
*********
And here is a quote from an actual court case where 'natural born citizen' is cited:
“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 [PLURAL, 'parents'] within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
That was covered under one of the other passages I quoted:
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration "that 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" contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization."
If the court recognizes that there are only two forms of citizenship - citizen at birth and naturalized - then it is clear that in their eyes the terms 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' are synonymous. Otherwise they would have talked of three classes of citizen. But if 'natural born citizen' is your chosen phrase then in the Elg case, the Supreme Court agreed with a lower court that ruled that a woman who was born in the U.S. of parents, only one of which was a naturalized citizen, was a natural born U.S. citizen. The key is being born in the U.S. Parental citizenship doesn't matter in almost all cases.
All of the men who included themselves in the exception clause (the grandfather clause) in the Constitution were born on this continent, but their fathers were not American citizens. If what you are trying to float were definitive, there would appear to have been no need for the exception clause to be written into the Constitution.
But not born in the United States, since no such entity existed. Hence the need for the grandfather clause. Otherwise they would have excluded themselves from consideration.
In specifically recognizing Mr. Wong Kim Ark as a U.S. citizen (not a 'natural born citizen') under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS laid down the general rule that any individual (other than children of foreign rulers and diplomats) born on U.S. soil to permanent resident alien parents is a citizen of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment.
It recognized Ark as a citizen at birth, and also made it clear that there were but two forms of citizenship. So unless you believe the intent of the Court was to exclude everyone from the presidency then it's clear that their position is citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same.
And here is a quote from an actual court case where 'natural born citizen' is cited.
And I also quoted from the Elg case, where 'natural born citizen' was cited. But in Happersett the question was not who is a natural born citizen but whether woman could be denied the right to vote. Chief Justice Chase also didn't rule one way or the other, merely noting there was some question. Well it's clear that the Ark case cleared up those questions in the eyes of the court.
Yikes! All this legal talk again. If he was not born in Hawaii he has committed FRAUD. Obama, the Democratic party, Pelosi, Reid, the whole bunch of them have committed FRAUD if he was born in Kenya. He would then be a criminal by having committed mail fraud.
“All of the men who included themselves in the exception clause (the grandfather clause) in the Constitution were born on this continent, but their fathers were not American citizens. If what you are trying to float were definitive, there would appear to have been no need for the exception clause to be written into the Constitution.”
Wrong. Although Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. were born on the American continent, they were not born on U.S. soil. There was no United States before the Constitution was ratified, and therefore there would have been no one eligible to be president until 35 after ratification, had not the grandfather clause been inserted. Their fathers not being American citizens had nothing to do with it. Or rather, nothing more to do with it than they themselves not being citizens at birth.
“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 [PLURAL, 'parents'] within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”