Replies

Federal statute law has no bearing upon the matter, outside of the enumerated power of determining a uniform law of naturalization, pertaining to immigrants.

Natural born citizen, being a term of art specific to the Constitution, having no legal bearing at the Federal level upon any form of citizenship outside of that required for election to the office of President, and having never been legally challenged in the history of our country, means that the original understanding of the Framers stands, as the meaning of the term. This is why so many debate the original intent of the Framers, because it is still definitive.

And, as I’ve noted, that was a determination that was clearly reserved to the states at the time, so state law does have much more relevancy to and bearing upon the matter than is generally understood beyond the earliest decades of the post-Civil War era. Prior to the 14th Amendment, states made every determination of citizenship. There were states such as New York, that recognized birth within their geographic boundaries as natural born. The legal foundation for such states was much more oriented to English common law.

There were states whose legal foundation was more influenced by the Dutch and in turn de Vattel, which required citizen parents, such as Georgia, Connecticut and Virginia.

Virginia went further and required both. Virginia had a tremendous influence and impact upon many aspects of our Constitution. We have Virginia and Virginians to thank for the Bill Of Rights.

Federal law regarding eligibility for the Presidency had to accomodate all the Several States in the United States, in order to ensure eligibility across these varying jurisdictions, by every standard then in effect.

Those standards may not be in effect any longer, but the Constitutional language certainly is, and so it does matter.

Obama is not eligible for office under those standards, which are still in effect as a result of the Constitutional language and the basis upon which it was defined.