Let's look at what else Judge Gray wrote. Bearing in mind that the plaintiff was born in the U.S. of parents neither of which were U.S. citizens. As to the types of citizenship, Justice Gray said:
"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."
So that's two types of citizenship, not three. And this is certainly in keeping with the Constitution which also recognizes only two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized. Obviously citizen by birth and natural born citizen are synonymous.
And does Obama's parentage negate his being a citizen at birth? No. In the Ark case the court ruled:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
If Obama was born in Hawaii then his father could be from Mars and his mother from Venus and he'd still be eligible to be president.
“If Obama was born in Hawaii then his father could be from Mars and his mother from Venus and he’d still be eligible to be president.”
Not if his father’s Martian citizenship status granted Hussein Martian citizenship at birth. We are also still trying to find out if he was born in Kenya, but he is stonewalling the documents that might establish that.
Leo Donofrio clearly explains on his website all the considerations in and implications of Wong Kim Ark. You’ve misrepresented the implications of the decision.
Donofrio’s is the clearest explanation, but there are many others that share his view.
The Social Security Administration recognizes three types of citizenship. Their paperwork includes the following choices:
- Citizen born inside the U.S.
- Citizen born outside the U.S.
- Naturalized citizen
No, they are not. Amendment 14 defines two paths to US citizenship, but NOWHERE in this Amendment will you find the term, "natural born citizen." Amendment 14 does not in any way affect the usage or meaning of the term, "natural born citizen," in Article II.
"Natural born citizen," is a requirement, of Article II and is not a class of citizen affirmed by Amendment 14, nor has it ever been. The term has always been interpreted to mean a child born on US Soil of two US citizens, which means Obama is not eligible.