Replies

I see no distinction between the word “native” and the term “natural born.” It was well understood at the time of the adoption of the constitution that “natural born” had to do with place of birth, not blood line or lineage. That term came from the English common law, which held that those who were immigrants but whose children were born in the realm were considered natural born subjects of the Crown. There is nothing to support the “original intent” of the Founders was anything other than the understood meaning of the term “natural born” at the time they wrote it as defined under English common law. This new “original intent” argument appears to be something wholly made up to attack Jindal grossly unfairly, and clearly has no basis in the plain text of the U.S. Constitution. Those who promote it show their hypocrisy - they believe in a “living constitution” they can change and manipulate to fit their own purposes at any given time.

Cat, there is a "scale" of qualifications for the various Federal elected offices in the Constitution. They spell out age, citizenship, and time of residency. A native-born or naturalized citizen may qualify for any office in the land, except President, providing the age and residency requirements are met. The President alone must be a "Natural Born Citizen." The fact that there is a difference spelled out has escaped you.

If "Native" meant "Natural," IMHO, the founders would have said so.

.... those who were immigrants but whose children were born in the realm ....

By that logic: Note that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was not an immigrant. He was a visitor. His children would be citizens of his country, as BHO, Jr. freely admits in Ayers' biography of him, when he tells us he was a "dual citizen."

The concept of dual citizenship aside, upon reaching his majority, BHO, Jr. could have chosen British, or Kenyan Citizenship. If he were indeed born in Hawaii to an American mother, he could choose to be naturalized as an American citizen.

A Natural Born Citizen could have no such option.

That’s not true. The founders were concerned about divided loyalties. natural born to parents who are both citizens there are no divided loyalties. I think anyone that doesn’t see that O has divided loyalties is a fool.

I see no distinction between the word “native” and the term “natural born.” It was well understood at the time of the adoption of the constitution that “natural born” had to do with place of birth, not blood line or lineage. That term came from the English common law, which held that those who were immigrants but whose children were born in the realm were considered natural born subjects of the Crown. There is nothing to support the “original intent” of the Founders was anything other than the understood meaning of the term “natural born” at the time they wrote it as defined under English common law.

Thanks for the explanation. This certainly makes more sense than anything else I've read on FR.