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.

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

Apparently not to the guy facing the camera.

Take it up with him.

“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.