Replies

"The meaning of the term "natural-born citizen" has been spelled out by our very first Supreme Court Justice, both before and after Ratification of the Constitution, and by the author of the 14th Amendment."

You have cited many sources. Let's deal with them one at a time:

John Jay: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

This was a letter John Jay wrote to Washington before the Constitution was ratified. Nowhere in it does he define what a natural born citizen is.

You cited two Supreme court cases (Chisolm V. Georgia and Marbury vs. Madison). Neither of these cases have to do with defining a natural born citizen or the definition of a natural born citizen.

You cited the 14th amendment.
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."

Where in that amendment is the term used of Natural born citizen? It's not. It says plainly, citizens of the United States. Coincidentally, the same term that is used in the Naturalization Act of 1795 you cited as changing the term:

"foreign-born children of American parents shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

This is the same term that is used in the current immigration and naturalization law. They are citizens of the United States at birth. So if you are going to cite the 14th amendment as saying people who were born here are natural born citizens, then the same term that is applied there is also applied to children outside the U.S. to parents who are American citizens.

Please, when you start citing cases and facts, you need to research what you are actually citing.

"Why is this so difficult?"

I'm asking the same question myself. John McCain is qualified under the constitution to be President.

You've misconstrued the intent of every cite I made in my reply to you, and I do think you've done so intentionally.

Chisholm was cited due to the recognition of citizen sovreignty put forth by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay. Citizen sovreignty is important due to the stark comparison with sovreigns under forms of government other than a Constitutional Republic, such as a monarchy. Under a Constitutional Republic, with sovereignty having devolved upon the citizens due to the absence of any lord or king to pledge one's liege or allegiance, such allegiance is to the citizenry as the people themselves, "We, the people." This is important in context, in understanding where John Jay was coming from, in having the "natural-born citizen" requirement inserted into the Constitution prior to ratification. That term, "natural-born citizen," did not come to John Jay in a dream, he didn't invent it himself ... he read it in The Law Of Nations, by Vattel. Vattel's definition of the term that Vattel coined, is two citizen parents and born of the soil.

Marbury was cited due to the limitations upon amendment recognized therein, as well as the proper role of the judiciary and the Constitutional limitations upon the judiciary itself, when dealing with issues pertaining to the judiciary under the Constitution.

The author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, was mentioned because he so clearly stated that:

" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

as you noted. Bingham is stating that the truth of the term "natural-born citizen" is self-evident, and we do hold these truths to be self-evident, do we not? Please also note, that Bingham is also quoted as warning, in the Spring of 1868, that:

"May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law..."

Immigration and naturalization do not deal with anyone being a natural-born citizen. That Congress has not successfully enacted any statute law dealing with the status or the term itself, since repealing The Naturalization Act Of 1790, should tell you something, if you're willing to understand.