Replies

Wath out you’ll get parsied.

• “Minor v. Happersett - yes, it’s been mentioned on FR but not fully hashed out. I don’t see how, if this was decided by the SCOTUS then they did indeed give a definition of the term NBC.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html";
Not only has it been discussed, but so too have other SCOTUS cases that have that exact definition that the framers (no doubt) used when they entered the NBC requirement without debate.
Attorney Apuzzo mentions these cases in the “Kerchner v Obama” & Congress case:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “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.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

That MEANING is cited over a dozen times by authors of the constitution, and the term used in over a dozen supreme court cases with never any alternative definition. I won't clutter up the comments but will refer you the http://puzo1.blogspot.com for the most explicit summary of references, and wonderful historical background. The meaning of most of the terms of art used in the Constitution are not defined in the document itself, just as engineering texts don't define force or integral or architectural design books don't define the formuli for steel or concrete. The common law is as much a part of the Constitution as the document itself. Hamilton and Wilson said Vattel’s Law of Nations was part of our common law. Vattel was the most cited legal reference between 1789 and 1821.

A more recent quotation of the relevant part, ‘born of two citizen parents’ can be found in the 2008 Senate Resolution, sponsored by Leahy, McGaskill, Clinton, Webb, Coburn, and Obama. Senator Leahy has just removed the document from his site, but it still resides in the Congressional Archives http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S30AP8-0040: The legal opinions regarding McCain are non-binding, but every senator in 2008 agreed that McCain's eligibility rested upon both of his parents being citizens, a fact they have all conveniently forgotten in less than two years.