Um where in the Constitution is Natural Born Citizen Defined?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
...If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen...
Actually it is
So you know more than the State Department? I'll play your little game, where in the Constitution does it say a statutory NBC is a Constitutional NBC?
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine...I believe in the Constitution and that there is a difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen, natural born citizen comes from both jus sanguinis and jus soli, and citizen can come from either one. I also believe the 14th amendment has been misconstrued to allow babies born in the US to illegal alien parents to be citizens, look how poorly that has worked out. That too has never been decided by the Supreme Court and is ripe for a decision. According to your definition the little border jumpers baby could be President even though his parents can't vote here and they vote elswhere. Great! Lets reward more lawbreaking. Why even have the clause in the Constitution then, its worthless.
No kidding?
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.
And under English common law, children born within the realm of the King where natural-born subjects of the King regardless of the nationality of the parents. Or so quoted Justice Gray in the Ark decision.
" 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."
And Justice Waitie was correct. The Happersett decision was not the place to solve whatever doubts one might have over who is a natural-born citizen and who was not, especially considering it was a voting rights case and not a citizenship case. So at best your 'doubts' persist. But your doubts do not the law make. You can present any definition of natural-born citizen you might care to make up. That doesn't make it settled law.
So you know more than the State Department? I'll play your little game, where in the Constitution does it say a statutory NBC is a Constitutional NBC?...
Nowhere. Now tell me where the Constitution or the law defines either statuatory natural-born citizen or Constitutional natural-born citizen.