Your reply is no answer at all. Think about this:
Why did the framers NOT insert the words “of two parent citizens” after the term Natural Born Citizen?
The Founders being smart people, many of them experienced lawyers, knew that there was an English phrase Natural Born Subject, which had been in use in England and later the colonies for 400 years. There was no requirement to have subject parents citizenship. The English believed that if you were born on English soil, you were English without further qualification.
Even aliens visiting upon their shores, except diplomats, could have children born on English soil and they would be subject to the Crown with exactly the same rights as any Englishman. This same phrase, Natural born subject was used in the Constitutions and Charters of the colonies to convey citizenship. This was the CONTEXT of the times.
Despite there existing this phrase, Natural Born Subject, that everyone knew, that had been used by each of the colonies, and which formed the backbone of many of the legal arguments the revolutionaries made in supporting the Revolution, the present day birther movement think the framers scrapped the understood meaning of natural born in favor of a more restrictive type of citizenship, ala Vattel.
Now here’s where it gets outlandishly dumb. Birthers believe that instead of choosing a different phrase than the one that was 400 years old and in common use, the framers used the very SAME phrase and expected that people would just get that they meant to refer to Vattel’s interpretation - even though Vattel’s book, even in the English language never said natural born citizen until 10 years after the Constitution was ratified! I wish I could have put all that in capital letters and shout it out.
Vattel’s book, in a 1760 English translated version used the words “naturels” and “indigenes” to describe citizens so if the Framers intended that meaning they would have used it. The Founders didn’t once say to themselves, “maybe we should use ‘indigenes,’ like Vattel did. They didn’t once write down, “We mean ‘natural born citizen’ to be completely different from ‘natural born subject.’ We know it might cause confusion but we really like that Vattel guy and we’re sure that if he was translated right, he would have written it that way.”
Vattel wrote: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didn’t the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way?
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as “Congress’s think tank”, had this to say:
“In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ and are ‘natural born,’ as opposed to ‘naturalized,’ U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.”
The source of this statement actually comes from a birther website:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/25349-what-natural-born-citizen.html
The CRS is also responsible for this quote:
“the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
Source” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
I can find three court cases that actually make a statement on “natural born”.
Lynche v. Clarke:
“Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
Someone born on US soil, of two non-citizen parents, is a natural-born citizen.
In re Look Tin Sing:
“After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.”
Someone born on US soil, of two non-citizen parents, is a natural-born citizen.
But those were both lower courts, one a state court. So obviously those aren’t enough.
How about Perkins v. Elg, decided by the Supreme Court in 1939?
“The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.
Someone born on US soil, of two non-citizen parents, who then return to their home country - renouncing the US citizenship for the child - can, as an adult, un-renounce US citizenship, claim US citizenship by birthright as being born on US soil, and be declared “a natural born citizen” by the Supreme Court.”
I think that decides it. The Supreme Court says that even if you’re born on US soil, and claim US citizenship as an adult even if your parents renounced US citizenship for you when you were a child, you’re a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court even quoted the following from the lower-court ruling in their findings:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”
Yup, they even explicitly state that a person such as this is qualified to become President. If Barak was born in Hawaii, he is qualified too.
The birther movement is a fringe element that distracts from the real issues and make the rest of us look like idiots.
What has to be done, and is being done by Arizona is proving that the BC is fraudulent. THAT IS THE WAY! There is no court in the land or politician that will say obummer is not qualified if he WAS indeed born in the U.S. no matter who his parents were, but they will declare him a usurper if he was born in Kenya as he has claimed previously. This is the way to go.
Finally, calling me wordy is ok because I am, but referring to me as a liberal poppinjay simply shows your own ignorance. Only liberals can disagree with you? You own the holy grail and no one dare speak out against you? You are on the right side of the issues on all matters? I owe you no further explanation.
Let me just add, how does it feel to know your position (2 parent rule) will NEVER see the light of day in any courtroom unless referring to citizens born abroad? You are on the losing end of a stupid and indefensible position. Now I’m a poppinjay! Ta Ta!
"Natural Born" means a status that exists as a result the of nature of one's birth - no act of man or government can change that.
If someone gives up their citizenship and takes on an allegiance to another state, their status as a NBC is gone for good, never to be regained.
The common law of England has not been declared by the Constitution to be a part of the law of the United States.
No statute has made the common law of England a part of the law of the United States.
Applying the common law of England to the federal government of the United States is not even possible.
An excellent explanation as to why English common law can not be the basis of the Federal government is found in the Appendix to “Correspondence between George Nicholas Esq. of Kentucky, and the Hon. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798”
The Appendix is titled, “Observations of Judge Addisons Charge to the Grand Jury On the Liberty-of-the-Press”
The thrust of the argument:
Could the common law of England become part of the law of the United States by its being part of the law of each of the states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
Although this would be giving efficacy to the inferior instead of the superior, let it be considered.
The law of each state prior to the adoption of the Constitution consisted of the common law of England, the state constitution, and the acts of the state legislature.
The common law of England then was only one of three pillars on which the law of each state was built. It was also the weakest of the three; because it ceased to have any efficacy as law as soon as it was clearly contradicted by either of the others.
If the common law became a part of the law of the United States, because it was part of the law of the individual state, the other two parts of the law of those states must also become a part of the law of the United States, and for the same reason.
But it may be said that these other two parts of the law of each state were dissimilar in the different states, and therefore could not become a part of the law of the United States; whereas the common law of England, in every state being the same, it might become the common law of the United States.
Is the common law of England in every state the same?
The acts of the British parliament are in force in the different states up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others to that of a different king.
Thus the common law of England would be different in these two states.
But the great difference which has been made in the common law in the different states, has proceeded from the changes which have been made in it, by the acts of all the legislatures of the different states, from the time of their first settlement.
Not only is the common law of England different among the states, each state legislature has altered it in different ways; thus the common law of the various states is in no way uniform.
The common law being materially different in all the sates, how can there be any common law in the United States? How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? &c &c
Incorporation of the common law into the Federal govt is impracticable.
Has the common law of England been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution?
The constitution declares, that “this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
The common law of England has not been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution.
Therefore, in no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.
The relevant pages of the original document, as well as a transcript from those images, is available at scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89761472
Or go to the Library of Congress:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fawbib:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28bbf0081%29%29
“Why did the framers NOT insert the words “of two parent citizens” after the term Natural Born Citizen?”
Aliens do not produce citizens, “natural born” or otherwise. Aliens produce aliens. See the Naturalization Acts of 1790, et. seq.
To be “natural born” you must be born to citizens. At the Framing, the citizenship of the wife followed that of the husband, hence two citizen parents.
And yet at least nine times the US supreme Court has defined “natural born” as born of two citizen parents.
English common law was to be ignored as much as possible for definitions, I mean we where at war with them!