My final thought on the birther issue

Unfortunately, there is no state or federal law and no US Supreme Court decision that has ever definitively defined the term “natural born citizen.”

Then it's about time we had one, a SCOTUS decision that is. Congress cannot redefine a Constitutional term of art, because that would constitute a change to the Constitution itself, which they can only initiate through the amendment process.

Just a quick followup: Is it your position that elections are subject to post-hoc review by Article III courts?

Yes. If there was fraud, such as wholesale vote miscounting and/or an ineligible cannidate/office holder is discovered, then the courts can act. Fraud is a crime after all, and someone not eligible to hold an office surely cannot be left in possession of it. Why should the People (another term of art) suffer because of the crimes of cannidates or their organizations. Mere errors in the process are another matter.

Is that power one that you are comfortable with courts exercising?

Like all other exercises of power, it must be done with extreme caution. But someone has to do it. You want the party in power to guard the hen house? That is surely the other alternative. That gets you Tammy Hall, and worse, much worse.

Natural born and “by birth” are one in the same in the year 2010, in these United States of America.

It's the 1787 meaning that is of interest. What you, or anyone else thinks it is now, doesn't count. What it meant when the contract was written, in 1787, that is what counts.

I don't know how you can even say what it means in 2010, since that part of the contract has never come up, although it should have once, so its meaning has not been adjudicated.

If the child is born outside the country to one citizen parent, there is no need to raise hand, etc. That child is considered to be a natural born citizen.

No, they are not even considered native born for Constitutional purposes. The 14th amendment doesn't even apply to them, since they were not "born or naturalized in the United States". There is Supreme Court precidence on that.

Now statute law says they are not naturalized, but Supreme Court case law says they are. They must be, since they are citizens strictly due to an act of Congress under the power "To Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That is even true if both parents were citizens, except probably those born in the armies of the state or it's diplomatic corps.

Even the US State Department, in it's U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs> Consular Affairs Manual, "Acquisition of Citizenship By Birth Abroad To US Parent" manualacknowledges that:

the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.