[jamese777]

El Gato’s post#60 and others in this thread tosses everything you have said and quoted into the trash bin of history.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2511602/posts

“That’s true, but since the Constitution defines very very few of its terms, we must look elsewhere for the definition understood by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

We know the term “natural born citizen” and the variant “natural born free citizen”, was in use well before the Constitution was written. But almost every use gives no hint as to it’s exact meaning.

However the Journals of the Continental Congress, for July 27, 1781 documents a translation of the French “naturels” to “natural born” in a secret agreement with France.

Vattel, in French, said that “naturels” and “indigenes” were those born in country of parents who were citizens. Many have argued that “naturels” means natives, and “indigenes” doesn’t mean naturals or natural born either.

(In reality depending on context, either word could be translated as “naturals”. But apparently those who translated that 1781 treaty felt “naturales” when modifying “subjects” was equivalent to “natural born”. If that was the understanding, then Vattels “naturels” could also be “natural born”.

The evidence is quite strong that “naturales” was understood, in these sorts of contexts, to mean “natural born”. Thus the case for the Vattel “definition”, requiring birth in the country (with exceptions for military and diplomats) of citizen parents, being the one the founders understood for “natural born citizen”, is very strong.”

---

That’s nice but no court that has adjudicated the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama has agreed with anything written above and since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1865, the courts have consistently held that there are only two classifications of citizenship for ALL Americans and that includes presidents: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president and naturalized citizens cannot be president. Its really that simple.

The current law of the land as codified in the US Code (Title 8/Section 1401) spells out the requirements to be a “Citizen-at-birth” and no court has ever ruled that there is a distinction between a person meeting the requirements to be a Citizen-at-birth and the requirements to be a “natural born citizen.” If there was such a distinction under law or via decision of the Supreme Court, Barack Obama would not be president today.

[bushpilot1]

A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child.

Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.”

Natural Born Citizen of the United States Eligibility for the Office of President. Albany Law Journal, 1904.

http://thelibertypole.ning.com/forum/topics/1904-naturalborn-citizen-of

[El Gato]

The current law of the land as codified in the US Code (Title 8/Section 1401) spells out the requirements to be a “Citizen-at-birth” and no court has ever ruled that there is a distinction between a person meeting the requirements to be a Citizen-at-birth and the requirements to be a “natural born citizen.”

That turns out not to be the case. Those born outside the US, and citizens at birth via 8/1401, have been ruled to be "naturalized at birth", in at least two Supreme Court cases. One as recently as the 1970s, IIRC.

Of course that only makes sense, since the power to define naturalization is the only power Congress has been delegated regarding citizenship. Since "naturalized" and "Natural born" do not intersect at all, such persons cannot be considered Natural Born Citizens.