We must not overlook the apparent rationale for the NBC requirement as regards the POTUS. Since the NBC requirement, in the constitutional sense, applies to only ONE constitutional office, that of the presidency, then a reasonable inference is that there is something singularly unique about the application of natural born citizenry to that position. I would submit that answer is revealed by the definition cited in the 1814 SCOTUS Venus case. The Court, cited the treatise, Law of Nations, authored by Swiss jurist Emmerich De Vatel. Vatel agrees that “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of PARENTS (note plural usage) 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.”
Like it or not, the founders were patriarchs, not post-modern feminists. They believed that the political influences of the father would weigh most heavily upon the political beliefs of the children. It is my profound belief, and that of some of the finest scholars on the matter that I have read, that the NBC requirement was intended to minimize the likelihood of undue foreign influence on the POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Obama, according to his own campaign, was born a citizen of THREE, count them THREE countries from his birth, owing to the British Immigration and Nationality Act of 1948 thru his father. Therefore, he was a citizen of Great Britain, Kenya, and if you accept his dubious birth narrative, a citizen of the US.
The founding fathers of the US, who were born British subjects and NONE of whom were natural born citizens, required a grandfather clause in Article II to allow them to be eligible to assume the office of POTUS. It is utterly inconceivable to me that they would allow someone born in the 20th century has a British citizen to be POTUS, absent a constitutional amendment allowing them consideration to that job. The 14th amendment, according to it’s selfsame authors, Sen. Trumball and Rep. Bingham, explicitly said that it did NOT confer natural born citizenship.
The constitution is not a dictionary. We do not have a definition for high crimes and misdemeanors either, but that has not stopped us from impeachments and Senate trials.
No SCOTUS decision, whether it be Minor vs Happersett, Perkins vs Elg, Wong Kim Ark vs US, or the Venus case has defined an NBC other than having TWO citizen parents and born on the soil of the US. I am not going to define NBC by the ABSENCE of a case saying that another definition also applies.
I fail to understand why so many seem to fear having this Article II NBC issue adjudicated by SCOTUS for a definitive ruling. I and many of us are more than ready for that fight. No matter the outcome, at least the matter will have been dealt with, instead of the almost obligatory obfuscation, ridicule and scorn. I think that in and of itself, is quite revealing.
Great post.
It is my opinion that any decision from today’s courts would eviscerate the Art. II Sec. 1 requirement and open the Presidency up to almost everyone with any tangential claim of US citizenship from birth, including Anwar Al Awlaki’s kids born in Yemen.
So, I guess there has only ever been one person who qualified? Or we were only supposed to ever have one President? Because that is the only way you can be certain that the Founders meant what you claim they meant. Just like the plural FATHERS in other laws and cases, I suppose, which means that only children with TWO+ fathers are NBC? Right. That'll make the Gay Lobby happy, I'm sure.
Your deliberate misreading of the language doesn't help your case.
If the Founders had wanted there to be additional special qualifications beyond those specified, they would have tacked them on. Instead they chose to use 'natural-born citizen' without an additional legal definition, making the dictionary definition 'having an attribute or quality from birth' the legal definition (as it was in the late 18th century).
Considering that the residency requirements themselves are only 40% of the age requirement it is obvious that the Founders anticipated that candidates for President might spend considerable time overseas, perhaps in diplomatic or military roles, or as dependents of such people. That right there undercuts your claims, as travel was such in those days that it was very likely that a child of a diplomat or officer stationed overseas would be born outside of the United States.
Additionally, all the arguments you NBC-deniers make depend on twisting the words of SCOTUS and other court cases. You quote, usually out of context, phrases such as "it is certain that a person born here of two citizen parents is a natural-born citizen", you carefully overlook that that is not an exclusive definition, nor has it ever been portrayed as such (favorably) in our legal system. It's like saying "it is certain that those who eat beef are carnivores" and concluding that that makes everybody else a vegan.
You can't just impose arbitrary rules unilaterally because you don't like how something turned out. That's what liberals do. If you want a rule change, get an amendment.