Replies

“Minor v. Happersett, 1875:
In obiter dictum, the Court referenced the natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution, stating, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

Why did you leave off the next sentence? It is as follows:

“For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

I have so far, not found any cases where these “doubts” have been addressed by the court. Rubio may or may not be considered a natural born citizen for the purposes of Article II, section 1.

Both sides have valid points, but there is some uncertainty as to how the supreme court would rule, and apparently the supremes are determined to avoid the issue. The states should address the issue regarding filing requirements as well as acceptable prove of natural born status.

greeneyes wrote:

“For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
I have so far, not found any cases where these “doubts” have been addressed by the court.

Well, greeneyes, if you have not found the case where the Court resolved those doubts, that's on you. Legal scholars found it. The editors of the most cited dictionary of American Law found it. Courts have been citing it many times for many years.

Rubio may or may not be considered a natural born citizen for the purposes of Article II, section 1.

Depending on whether or not the one doing the considering goes in for a certain crank theory.

Both sides have valid points, but there is some uncertainty as to how the supreme court would rule, and apparently the supremes are determined to avoid the issue.

I think the Supreme Court has addressed the issue. See Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbor:

...he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

Or much more recently, Rogers vs. Bellei:

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.