I don't see myself as "quick" to do anything. All of these Vittel based arguments have been around a long time and have been considered in the journals and among Constitutional lawyers in a number of different settings.
And there is not, as you suggest, any doubt what the founder's intended.
But after the founder's acted and we had the Constitution, we amended it--so the Constitutional bar looks at the Amendment as having changed the application of the provisions of the Constitution pertaining to citizenship.
The prevailing view is that the adoption of the born in the USA citizenship rule is viewed as conveying all of the rights privileges and immunities of citizenship including but not limited to natural born rights to any person who is born here.
In the context of the present political environment, the natural born clause is in general disrepute among the Liberal legal establishment generally--they are all in favor of a single international rule of legal principals they like. They don't have the courage to just say they are going to ignore the constitution although that is clearly where they would like to go. In the context of the personal attacks on Goldwater and Romney (the elder) on natural born grounds, they do not view themselves as being in a position to ignore the provision.
But it is going to get very narrow application. In the present situation, if Obama can prove he was born in the USA, he is going to win. If we can prove he was not born here, we would win.
Thank you for your reply.
I see your point about if it is able to be proven in court that he was not born here, that is a slam dunk.
Still, I think the courts need to visit and make clear exactly what is a NBC, and I don’t see any reason to veer from the original intent of the Constitution.
If your are referring to the Fourteenth amendment, it does not contain any reference to the term "natural born citizen". Thus it cannot possibly eliminate or change whatever "natural born citizen" meant. They would have had to eliminate it from Article two, section one in writing to do so.
The prevailing view is that the adoption of the born in the USA citizenship rule is viewed as conveying all of the rights privileges and immunities of citizenship including but not limited to natural born rights to any person who is born here."
Here are two liberals agreeing that parentage is indeed part of the natural born status as they are discussing Senate Resolution 511 back in 2008.
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents,you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.
The prevailing view is that the adoption of the born in the USA citizenship rule is viewed as conveying all of the rights privileges and immunities of citizenship including but not limited to natural born rights to any person who is born here.
Are you saying that even if a child is adopted by a foreigner and obtains (however it is obtained) citizenship of the adopted parent, he is still a NBC? I really find that hard to swallow, if that is what you said (and I could be wrong). No court has ever determined this, anyway.