[no dems]

So then, Marco Rubio, who was born in Miami, and Bobby Jindal who was born in Baton Rouge, LA, are eligible to be Prez or VP even though their parents were NOT citizens. Am I right or wrong?

[reefdiver]

zer0 is a fraud, Republicans know it, the world knows it.

[Noob1999]

A most excellent article - although my eyelids are propped open.

Now, all we need to find is a few serious respected individuals that cannot be ignored by the media; who are willing to stand up in congress and shout, “YOU’RE A LIER, A FRAUD, A POSEUR”!!!

Certainly not amongst this bunch of pantywaist pubbies!

[bgill]

In SR 511, Obama agreed and signed his name that the definition of NBC means born in the US with TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.

[jjotto]

This is a moot point. The courts will recognize only two types of citizens: “natural born” and “naturalized”. Appeals to original intent will be no more successful in this case than in the case of the “general welfare” clause.

[chris37]

What I have learned from this whole affair is that the strict definition of NBC that some want enforced in such a way that it rules Obama out isn’t going to be enforced in such a manner.

Let’s face reality on that, ok? He isn’t going to be marched out of the white house on this, he just isn’t.

The problem here is that he was elected in the first place. That is the root of the problem, and having a judge cut off the head of a weed by removing him from office isn’t going to address the root, and it will grow back.

The problem is with us, and it is up to us as voters, as guardians of our own freedom, to vote him out and put in a proper president.

It’s up to us, and no one but us. I do not want a judge to guard my freedom. Who will guard the judge who guards my freedom? This is our task, this is our duty, and if we cannot do it, then we do not deserve to have it done for us.

[Morgana]

[RedCell]

A holy-crap-that’s-a-lot-to-read-before-going-to-bed ping

[octex]

Bump for later read...

[Kleon]

In Alexander Hamilton's first draft of the U.S. Constitution, a person had to be "born a citizen" of the United States in order to be eligible to serve as president. However, in July 1787, John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, recommending that the presidential eligibility requirement be changed from "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen". The stated purpose of the change was to exclude "foreigners" from the presidency:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

From this information alone, we may infer that:

To the members of the he Constitutional Convention, the words "born a citizen" and "natural born citizen" meant different things.

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before, but let me say again that you're on shaky historical ground here. When John Jay wrote this letter, several State plans were being considered, and the Hamilton plan had actually been dismissed by a vote a few weeks earlier. There's simply no reason to believe John Jay was writing this in response to Hamilton's plan.

[Mr Rogers]

“The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.””

Wrong. Just one of many false statements that riddle this piece.

[bluecat6]

Outstanding piece of work.

One of the best consolidated versions of the subject available.

[The Big T]

Actually you have several mistakes in your essay. Among them is your assertion that the Minor is precedent for the 2 citizen parent requirement if born in the USA. The SOLE issue before SCOTUS was whether the 14th Amendment equal protection clause granted women the right to vote. The opinion clearly states that the first part of it. There is only one holding in this case and has nothing to do with natural born citizenship. In addition you seem to put much credence in the syllabus of the case. The syllabus is NOT part of the court's opinion, decision or holding, it is NOT written by the court but rather a private individual and is of zero precedential value. It is akin to the cliff notes read by lazy students rather then actual book. If a lawyer used the syllabus in court rather than quoting the actual opinion, that lawyer would be laughed out of court.

It is also apparent that you have not read the leading case on natural born citizenship, Wong Kim Ark. The SCOTUS relies more heavily on British common law definitions than the 14th amendment in arriving at their decision and holding. The WKA case is the leading citizenship case by SCOTUS and is accepted law today. Scotus had an opportunity to address this In December 2008 and refused to grant writ on the Donofrio case before at a time when it would have been ripe.

Why did C.J. Roberts swear Obama into office if the law and constitution are as you claim? There appears to zero support for your position in the conservative, constitutional legal community. What do you attribute that to?

[The Pack Knight]

Except in special cases, a child was a subject born (a subject by natural law) if it met two requirements at the time of its birth: a birthplace requirement (the child had to be born within the king's realm), and a parental obedience requirement (the child's parents had to be under the "actual obedience" of the king):

There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. (Coke (1608), p.208)

That passage from Calvin's Case isn't very instructive to the issue at hand without a discussion of what "actual obedience" is. Fortunately, Lord Coke does so earlier in his opinion.

Coke describes four sources of obedience, or "legeance": ligeantia naturalis, ligeantia acquisita, ligeantia localis, and legal legeance. His discussion of the third type, "ligeantia localis", or local obedience, is instructive:

3. Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infirma et minima, et maxime incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.

Coke clearly states here that the issue of one under "local obedience", who as Coke describes earlier in the opinion as "an alien that is in amity cometh into England", is a natural born subject, and a "subject born" rather than a "subject made".

[bushpilot1]

The key to the meaning of natural born citizen is the word natural.

Going back to the old dictionaries...Natural and Kind have the same meaning. Kind comes from the anglo saxon word gecynde.

Research Kind Natural Gecynde..and you will find the Founders meaning and reason why they opted to use natural born citizen.

A natural born citizen has to come from citizen parents.

[KarenMarie]

mrkd

[rxsid]

Who is a "natural born Citizen?"

Look to the founding document (which we just celebrated) for a clue.

Based on natural law.

You, of course, already know that though ;)

[Tunehead54]

NBC Reference Bump ... ;-)