Replies

Nowhere, in the US Constitution, does it define or state that Laws concerning Citizenship have to be defined, explicitly, in the Constitution. Therefore, it is left up to EITHER Congress OR the Amendment process to define what "Natural Born" is.

Natural born is axiomatic. The fact that it is "natural" means it is not man-made. A definition by law makes no more sense than defining a natural mathematical constant by law.

There currently is no definition defining "Natural Born" as requiring two citizen parents, therefore,

There very much *IS* a definition defining "natural born citizen" as requiring two citizen parents, and this definition has been the default norm for the last 3500 years. This latest "British Law" based nonsense only goes back to about 1600 and includes all sorts of modifications, redefinitions and inconsistencies. Even the British didn't use it regarding the eligibility requirements of their chief executive.

Natural born is axiomatic. The fact that it is "natural" means it is not man-made. A definition by law makes no more sense than defining a natural mathematical constant by law.

And yet, as this thread shows, both today and during the time-period that the founders were alive, there were and are multiple definitions of what it actually means. Furthermore, even if you were correct, the current Congress and Supreme Court would not agree with you in anything resembling a majority.

You want this to mean something, that much I get; you can even point to some evidence that SOME people agree with your definition at SOME point in history. Your problem is that you will never be able to convince near enough people of the correctness of your position to be able to make an effective change.

There just is not enough solid evidence to prove your point.

You're jousting at wind mills.

There very much *IS* a definition defining "natural born citizen" as requiring two citizen parents, and this definition has been the default norm for the last 3500 years. This latest "British Law" based nonsense only goes back to about 1600 and includes all sorts of modifications, redefinitions and inconsistencies. Even the British didn't use it regarding the eligibility requirements of their chief executive.

And there are other definitions from the same time-period that do not agree with that definition.

And all of this is problematic since none of those definitions was included in the US Constitution.

FACT:

The whole two citizen parents and born on American soil definition of Natural Born Citizen did not even exist until after Obama was nominated. If you asked 100 freepers the definition of NBC in 2007 none of them would give the two citizen parents, native soil version. Birthers act as if this was the standard definition for hundreds of years when in fact it was not even invented until Obama came along, I am yet to see a school book that defined it this way.

THE SAD TRUTH:

Birtherism has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is basically just a political smear. A pretty crappy one at that, being easily refuted with the most minimal research. 99% of people who made birther claims never really believed them, it was just a convenient way to throw mud at Obama. Hence the second that Obama got reelected, the birther movement basically died as the smear no longer served a political purpose. If Cruz runs for President (I hope he does, and believe he would win) it will mean the few remaining birthers will get mopped up as the smear will go from being just useless to being destructive to conservative goals.