>Please explain how “natural born citizen” is a subset of “citizen”?
>
>You can find the types of statutory citizenships of the U.S.A. at www.uscis.gov., then click on ‘Citizenship’.
Actually you just answered it, the set Citizen is the union of the subsets of “Natural Born Citizen” and “Statutory Citizens” and “Dual Citizens.”
>Natural born citizenhip is never mentioned BECAUSE it is not a type of citizenship, just an elgibility requirement to be President of the United States.
The reason it is in the requirements to be President is because “Statutory Citizens” owed their allegiance to some foreign country (and it would not do for the commander of the Armies and Navies to have any possible allegiance to someone with whom he might have to war with... or to try to commit the forces under his command in what would otherwise be a neutral affair).
Actually, natural born citizen is born in a nation of citizen parents.
Native born (jus solis) + derived citizen (jus sanguinis) = natural born citizen.
ONLY NATIONAL LAW MAKES BINDING PRECEDENT.
The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor [Minor vs. Happersett} is not common law, natural law, or international law. Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor. And Vattel does not make US law. The Court’s holding in Minor is national law. It is United States law.
Those other sources may have been consulted, but when the Court held that Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 BECAUSE SHE WAS BORN IN THE U.S. OF CITIZEN PARENTS, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.
The other sources are not necessary. Relying upon them actually weakens the authority of Minor. There is no need for insecurity in the face of supporting Supreme Court precedent.
On November 22, 2008, Justice Scalia addressed the Federalist Society, stating:
“Natural law has nothing to do with originalism. I mean, I believe in natural law, but unfortunately I have no way to show or demonstrate that my understanding of it is the same as yours, or is the same as anybody else’s. I don’t enforce natural law. I suppose God enforces natural law. I enforce United States law. United States law should not contravene natural law, but that’s not my problem… I worry about, ‘What does this text mean?’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Earlier in that same speech, Justice Scalia stated:
“What has happened can only be compared to the naive belief that we used to have in the common law… Erie Railroad, you know, blows that all away… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law…”
Do not get sidetracked by extraneous theoretical sources. We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Neither Obama nor McCain fit that definition. Neither are eligible to be President.
While some may argue McCain was eligible based upon a reference to Vattel, McCain simply does not fit the strict US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen as defined in Minor. To fashion an exception for McCain not found in the actual text from Minor is purely partisan and unfair.
Unlike others commenting on eligibility, I have always maintained that both McCain and Obama were not eligible. I brought my law suit all the way to the Supreme Court – prior to the election – arguing against both candidates’ eligibility. I was the first person to raise this issue with the American people. And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for the nation than they did for themselves.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/