Yes, I guess I am confused as the Supreme Court has already ruled that while a person born on US soil is a citizen, the meaning of 'natural born' as it pertains to the Constitution and Article II, resort must be hels elsewhere.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/world-net-daily-aiding-and-abetting-obama-eligibility-propaganda/
I suppose the following quote from the US Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett - which was actually quoted in the WND article – has somehow escaped Kreep:
“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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
So how many classes of citizens are there? 3?
I believe that quote from Minor would qualify as dicta.
I don’t believe the SC has been asked to determine if someone is a natural born citizen or not. They should not be faulted for not going beyond the question asked. I think they will come to the conclusion that citizen at birth and natural born citizen are synonymous terms, if asked the question.
Who do you think the Framers were intending to keep out of the presidency and does Obama fall into that category? To my way of thinking the intent was to keep the US from ever importing a monarch, which was discussed, and to at least provide some protection from a person working for their government coming to the US naturalizing and becoming president to aid the home country he is still loyal to. It wouldn’t rule out other potential methods of getting a turncoat into the office, but it is a start against more easily discernible agents. At least that seems to me to be the logic behind such a provision. Obama is not a member of either of those groups as far as I know. I’m open to other reasons behind the provision.