Replies

Thank you for your reply.

You stated "..but the legal community regarded the eligibility of the native-born as clear and settled long ago."

So is it your position (and that of the majority of the "legal community") that there is no differentiation to be made between the terms "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" as it relates to the question of presidential eligibility?

You also point out in your post "Apuzzo already presented the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was one of his four questions presented his his petition for certiorari in Kerchner v. Obama." That is correct, although the USSC was being asked hear an Appeals Court case that had been concerned almost exclusively with the matter of a District Court ruling that appelants lacked standing to bring a case in the first place. So we can all agree (from a practical legal matter) that Kerchner et.al lacked standing to bring a lawsuit. How does agreement on a matter of standing affect the underlying question of whether there is a dispute concerning the substance of the eligibility issue?

Indeed, from my reading of the Appeals Court ruling, they readily admit that they did not address the underlying question pertaining to the "natural born citizen" phrase. Here is how they put it: "

From Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F. 3d 204 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2010

[4] We need not discuss Appellants' contention that "the original common law definition of an Article II `natural born Citizen' ... is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father." Appellants' Br. at 18. That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.

You end with "That some people delude themselves into believing that Apuzzo and Donofrio are constitutional scholars is not sufficient reason for the High Court to take a case."

Of course, the USSC would not take a case based on their impression of the stature of the attorneys submitting a peititon, that is patently ridiculous. I am not concerned with this matter because I agree or disagree with Apuzzo or any other member of the legal community. My only point is that there is disagreement on the matter and your reply, while appreciated, does not alter that conclusion.

Let_It_Be_So wrote:

So is it your position (and that of the majority of the "legal community") that there is no differentiation to be made between the terms "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" as it relates to the question of presidential eligibility?

Absolutely not. In our time there has been no question that native-born citizens are natural-born citizens, but the converse does not hold. The question has been whether *only* the native-born are natural-born. The dominant view in the legal community is that the terms are not equivalent, and that "natural-born citizen" means a citizen from the time of birth. As one eminent constitutional scholar explained it:

"The Constitution's rule that the president be 'a natural born citizen' focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date." -- Akhil Reed Amar, "The Constitution and the Candidates" http://slate.com/id/2183588/

Of course, the USSC would not take a case based on their impression of the stature of the attorneys submitting a peititon, that is patently ridiculous. I am not concerned with this matter because I agree or disagree with Apuzzo or any other member of the legal community. My only point is that there is disagreement on the matter and your reply, while appreciated, does not alter that conclusion.

Disagreement about whether a native-born child of a foreigner is eligible to be president? I predicted that no one would be able to cite even one constitutional scholar who says that foreign parents are a disqualifier, and so far my prediction has born out. People cited Donofrio and Apuzzo. I mean, come on.

Does this issue require clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court? No. Want to know what "natural-born citizen" means? Just look it up in Black's Law Dictionary. The High Court regularly cites Black's, as West Publishing wants everyone to know.