Right, and obama is legit. If you’re so familiar with law, go study this and get back to us:
• “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.
Can anyone here even begin to think that the Founding Fathers who risked everything to become independent of the crown would put language in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British Subject to someday become POTUS?
And Minor vs. Hapersett very clearly does not give a definition of natural born citizen. Carefully read the text:
“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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
They do not make a determination of NBC at all. And the hypothetical issue they raise is whether or not children born here without reference to the citizenship of the parents are citizens at all. Which they explicitly state they do not need to determine. And all of which predates the 14th Amendment.
The later language in United States vs, Wong Kim Ark is far more explicit and can only be read to conclude that a historical and legal basis for considering children born here to be NBCs exists. That basis was explicitly cited by an actual court last year to conclude that Obama was an NBC. You can think that's wrong all you want, but at present, it trumps a cut-and-paste list from the writings of some lawyer losing every case they bring.
Because the case did not turn on that definition, it is dicta, just like everything else the Supreme Court has written or quoted, about the definition. It can only matter in a Presidential (or VP) eligibility case, as being eligible for President is the only time being a Natural Born Citizen matters. Since there have been no such cases, there has been no definition that forms a precidence for future courts.