This was discussed a bit in ‘68, when George Romney was a candidate in the Republican primaries. The talk at the time was that, since he was born in Mexico of American citizen parents, that this made him a natural born citizen.
I have heard so much conflicting talk on this whole issue that I don’t know what to think. I have also heard that the courts have never ruled on the official definition of a natural born citizen.
And, if both major political parties simply ignore an issue, it doesn’t ever get addressed.
I really wish the issue could be settled.
We all know that anyone born on US soil is a “citizen”, but natural born citizen seems to be a very grey area.
The Obots feel that just being born in the USA is natural born, but many on our side dispute it, claiming that both parents MUST BE US citizens.
I have seen many arguments for our side, but it is obviously
a somewhat grey area.
I am convinced that there is something wrong with Obozo’s birth story, but it will take an act of God to bring it out.
Dilbert there has been much conflicting talk because both parties failed to vet legitimate candidates. They did try to vet McCain, at least five times, and twice more with a bill and resolution in 2008, and could not do more than claim that they thought he should be eligible, for having served and been a prisoner of war. Their argument was that because he was born to citizen parents, even if he was born on “unincorporated territory” he should be deemed natural born. Yes, as Democrat Law Professor Gabriel Chin explained in great detail in "Why Senator John McCain can Never Be President". The law is clear. A number of the children of military personel born in The Canal Zone before the Zone was incoporated in 1937, a year after McCain's birth, were deported by our INS for lack of citizenship. One the ninety nine senators who signed SR511 in April of 2008 was Barack Obama, who was not born to citizen parents, and never claimed to be a natural born citizen - not once. Barack understands the law, but has honestly stated that he believes the old Constitution to be mostly of historical significance, because it is a document “negative liberties” that prevents him from making the changes he feels the country needs.
The courts have certainly ruled, in Minor v. Happersett, and most unequivocally, as great Chief Justices tend to do when they create precedent out of common-law. The Constitution itself contains only one definition, by design, because, as Madison explained, the meanings of words change. Here is the precedential law. You didn't see it because George Soros’ acolytes Tim Stanley, CEO of justia.com and Carl Malamud CIO for Soros’ Center for American Progress, scrubbed dozens of Supreme Court decisions from Google, from justia.com, and from Cornell Law. (Google’s usual first response when searching for Supreme Court decisions and Minor v. Happersett or natural born citizen), At Cornell Law, Malamud is working to provide access, to politically edited Court decsions. He is working as well with many other law schools “Making Government Information More Accessible.” What they did was to "mangle" (Tim Stanley's word) citations to Minor v. Happersett so that searches would not reveal the connection. That is how much legal research is done today. Law schools must know, but are too dependent upon federal largess to do more than warn their students not to trust the "open" legal search resources. But that is what we, the public, had to try to learn the truth, confirming that Soros' people were managing access to our legal foundations.
Chief Justice Waite's clear definition:
“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.”
Waite's decision in Minor was based, as is every other interpretation of a term in the Constitution except for "Treason", upon the "never doubted" common-law definition. Our greatest Chief Justice, who was also both a founder and framer, John Marshall left no doubt in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Before Leo Donofrio's analysis revealed that Minor was indeed precedent - stare decisis - there were no end of arguments about the translation from the French of "native." Minor resolved those arguments by equating them.
And in case the Obama cadre are around to attempt to confuse you by claiming that the 14th Amendment, which defined “native born citizen of the U.S.”, is equivalent to natural born citizen, "native-born" being the term Barack correctly used for his own status, here is the author of the 14th Amendment, abolitionist, judge, and Ohio Congressman John Bingham explaining natural born citizens to the House in 1866:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Republicans ignored our greatest justices, and the Constitution because McCain was next in line, eligible or not. Now, they want Rubio for the Hispanic vote, and he is not eligible either, since his parents were not citizens when he was born here. Both parties have leadership that willfully and with full knowledge, violated Article II Section 1. Every Senator signed SR511 (except McCain, since it was about his status) acknowledging the need for citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. If you read Obama Con Law Professor Larry Tribe's analysis, contributed in Tribe's capacity as a member of Obama’s campaign committee, you will find that Tribe sneakily includes the jus soli requirement with the jus sanguinis requirement, "both", but claims, dishonestly that The Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory. They all know and their lips are sealed, particularly after having seen Congressman Nathan Deal charged with ethics violations when he dared to ask (he is now Governor of Georgia).
Don't trust the pundits or the politicians. Read our framers and at least, Minor v. Happersett. Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo are the most clear in explaining the history and law, which was applied at least as late as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg. Don't believe claims that Minor didn't require natural born citizenship for its conclusion. The only Constitutional citizen before the 14th Amendment was a natural born citizen. Waite uses Elizabeth Minors having been born to citizen parents on our soil to affirm that she is a citizen. Each state had its own definition for who were citizens until Congress got to work to make “an uniform rule for naturalization” - Article 1 Sect 8, after 1868. Without establishing the "never doubted" common law, the Chief Justice couldn't make his case. Least someone claim the Wong Kim Ark made anchor babies into natural born citizen, Wong Kim was born to two Aliens, and was made a "citizen" - not a natural born citizen. Justice Gray cited Minor first in his decision.
It is a travesty that our representatives are hiding from the law, but we can fix it. That must begin, while we still honor the 1st Amendment, by helping those too busy, or too confused by the media and Obama operatives, to know what to believe. Read Minor yourselves. Only the Supreme Court can reinterpret precedent. With Kagan and Sotomayor wanting to keep their jobs, they may do just that, but until they do, Obama is not eligible to the presidency, and everyone in Congress knew. That is why the Congressional Research Service has written three self contradictory and lengthy papers explaining how to deflect eligibility questions (authored by Jack Maskill, who must be ashamed of himself, but probably wanted to keep his job). That is why Obama and his campaign chairwoman Clare McCaskill tried to pass S.2678 in Feb 2008 "To Insure that Foreign Born Children of Military Citzens Can Become President." They knew. They didn't have time for another attempt at amending Article II, and twenty six such attempts had failed. They lied, and the man in the White House is a fraud.