Replies

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

While law journal articles can be helpful, I prefer to rely on actual decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States for the most authoritative determination of what is constitutional and what isn’t. Law journal articles do not have the force of law.

For example, the US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Villato, 2 U.S. 370 (1797) in a case that involved a prisoner, captured and charged with treason. The issue was whether he could be charged with treason, given that he was “by birth a Spaniard, and had never become a naturalized citizen of the United States.”

Quote from the decision of the Court:
“... The act declares, that a foreigner, having taken the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance, and resided here one year, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges specified in the 42nd section of the old constitution; that is, he may acquire, hold, and transfer real estate, and enjoy all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except the right of being elected a representative, which he cannot enjoy for two years. Now, the existing constitution will not allow any man to be even an elector, who has not resided here two years; and besides requiring a longer period of residence than two years, to entitle a citizen to be elected a representative, a senator, or governor, it superadds the qualification, that he shall be of a certain age, before he can be chosen for those offices respectively. If, then, the act of assembly is in force, an alien naturalized under it, having the rights of the old, is in a situation preferable to a natural born citizen under the accumulative restraints of the new constitution. But a contrary construction has been given whenever the point was directly presented for consideration (which was not the case in Collet v. Collet) by the legislature, by our courts, and by the bar.”

The high court recognized two (and only two) types of citizens: (1)natural born and (2)naturalized. The Court used “natural born citizen” in context of general citizenship, and not as some special class applicable to Article II.

There is no decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States which states that two citizen parents are required in order to qualify as a natural born citizen for purposes of Article 2, Section 1.