Replies

Clearly, the framers make a distinction between a "Citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen" as far as eligibility requirements to hold federal government office. All Natural Born Citizens are Citizens, but not all Citizens are "Natural Born" Citizens.

That's right, because the term "citizen" includes naturalized citizens. What you can't show is anything indicating that the Founders thought there was a third category-- not a naturalized citizen but not a natural-born citizen. Under English Common law, the words "natural born" and "naturalized" were antonyms, and that's the usage the Constitution adopted.

"That's right, because the term "citizen" includes naturalized citizens

And when did that take place? Within the Constitution? Or, years after?

At the time the Constitution was adopted, as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, there were two kinds of citizens. "Citizen" as mentioned in the Constitution, and "Natural Born Citizen" as mentioned in the Constitution. There was no "Naturalized" Citizen of the United States till years later.

“What you can't show is anything indicating that the Founders thought there was a third category— not a naturalized citizen but not a natural-born citizen. Under English Common law, the words “natural born” and “naturalized” were antonyms, and that's the usage the Constitution adopted.”

In the Minor case Justice Waite stated there is “doubt” that the US born child of a foreign citizen father is a natural born citizen, while there is “no doubt” that the US born child of a US citizen father is a nature born citizen.

Thus, according to Waite, the most recent SCOTUS ruling explicitly commenting on the definition of NBC, there are two distinct categories of non-naturalized US citizens, i.e., those about whom there is no doubt as to NBC status and those about whom there remains doubt.

Until there is another SCOTUS ruling, I believe that is where the NBC issue stands. The Wong case only concluded that Wong had the same citizen rights as a natural born citizen. By making and preserving that distinction in Wong, i.e. by not explicitly declaring Wong to be NBC, but only to have the same citizen rights as an NBC, the “doubt” declared by Justice Waite remains unresolved.

Justice Waite's "doubt" category of US born citizen applies to Obama, assuming that BHO Sr. is his legal, non-bigamously married father under US law and under the BNA of 1948.

Note the lawyerly language in the Factcheck statement on the 1948 BNA, which says only that it applies to BHO Sr's "children" and _not_ explicitly to BHO II! The Factcheck statement fails to mention that the 1948 BNA only applies to the non-bigamous, non-illegitimate children of BHO Sr., which may not include Obama, if litigated.

Very clever of the lawyers who drafted the Factcheck statement on the 1948 BNA and BHO Sr's children!