“You are NOT a natural born citizen if your mom isn’t and/or your daddy isn’t a citizen of the US of A.”
Please cite legislation or court ruling which defines natural born citizen in the manner which you claim.
You first. Please end this confusion by citing legislation or court ruling which states that dual citizenship meets/doesn’t violate the Presidential eligibility requirements required by the Constitution.
Please cite legislation or court ruling which defines natural born citizen in the manner which you claim.
------------------------------------
As you know, there has never been a court ruling (one way or another) on the issue of "natural born Citizen" as it pertains to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That, of course, is the very reason there is an issue today.
There is, however, mention of the definition in the dicta of SCOTUS rulings on OTHER issues.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (A case on citizenship and domicile. Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel six (6) times by name, and "law of nations" ten (10) times.)
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""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
Furthermore, "natural born Citizen" was defined in the people's House during the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment concerning "citizenship."
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment!
The natural law definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War. "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The natural law definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War. “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
No Congressman, during the debates on Citizenship, offered up a counter argument as to who a "natural born Citizen" is. Even though the 14th Amendment was not about who may be considered a "natural born Citizen"... they, the authors of the 14th, al knew what it meant - born in the sovereign territory to (two) citizen parentS.
Then, of course, the Congress in 1790 *tried* to extend the meaning with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Non binding Senate resolution 511 referenced this Act in it's "declaration" that McCain was a NBC because of his two citizen parents.
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did not attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to extend the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS.
One thing you will note on these threads is that nobody can explain why, among the millions of people who knew that Obama's father was a Kenyan, not a single one of them registered a single complaint about his status prior to the election.
It's a puzzle, for sure...