[SoConPubbie]

The constitution is a very short document..... There is no room to define terms..... but the framers all agreed on the meaning of what they wrote when they authored it. Today because of ignorance and the fact that language over time changes, there is some debate as to some meanings....

True, but since they did not give a succint and complete definition of Natural Born, they left it up to succeeding generations to define the term.

[Constitution 123]

""""True, but since they did not give a succint and complete definition of Natural Born, they left it up to succeeding generations to define the term."""

NO You are wrong again.... The founders knew exactly what they meant when they authored it. They all agreed. Like I said, they debated every single word untill they agreed. I understand what they meant. It is very clear to me. BUT you think they intentionally made the meaning ambiguous? Jeesh

[PwrPencil]

Gouverneur Morris, a founding father and a member of the committee responsible for writing much of the final constitution wrote this in a letter in 1813 (http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_gom8450) “It is unquestionably a point of universal Law, established from the earliest ages, that every nation has an indefeasable right over its own natural born Citizens.”

How can two nations have an indefeasable right over the same citizen?

They can’t. Natural born citizen by Morris’ useage would only apply to someone who was born in country to citizen parents. Anything other leaves open claims by other nations.

Cruz and Obama both have multiple nations that can make claims to their “right” over them. Born in Canada with a Cuban father and an American mother puts 3 nations in conflict. Obama with an American mom and a Kenyan/British dad also has obvious conflicts.

At this point I am inclined to defer to a founding father’s definition, especially one who was responsible for the wording of the constitution.