Replies

"To be "natural born" one must be born within the United States to TWO US citizen (but not necessarily natural born) parents."

This is still not true. There still isn't a 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' class (a 3rd class) of citizen. This definition of 'natural born' that you keep touting does not exist. How could the FFs have meant this alternate definition when there was no discussion or documentation to support it? The COTUS uses the term 'natural born' and it means exactly what the dictionary says it means: 'having a quality or status from birth.' There is no record of any debate regarding an alternative meaning for the expression and no rational reason to believe that some kind of consensus in accord with your statements was ever achieved. Particularly in light of the absence of any documentation by the FFs supporting your position.

Both of you are in need of education, which I will attempt to provide, at least at the elementary level. Controlling cases on this issue are scarce as hen’s teeth, probably because no previous Presidential candidate so egregiously challenged the supremacy of the Constitution.

But, in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court quoted at length from a prior case, Minor v. Happerset (1874), which I quote in full:

” ‘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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

This represents the Constitutional definition of both a “natural-born” and a “native-born” citizen. An irrational and legally unsupported view has grown up in the United States that the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone and everyone born on the territory of the United States. This view is unsupported, wrong, not in accord with legitimate precedent, and dangerous. You will also note that the holding in Minor would bring into question not only the “natural born” citizenship of a person like Obama, but his very citizenship itself.

The Congress may grant citizenship through its powers of naturalization, and we may safely say that it has done so in the cases of individuals who are born in the United States of ONE citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, or to children of US citizen parents born outside the territory of the United States, but Congress absolutely lacks the power to amend the Constitution by means of enacting statute law.

Therefore, contrary to your uninformed but commonly held opinion that there is not a “3rd” class of citizen that is a citizen by birth, but which is not a “natural born” citizen as established by the Constitution, there most definitely IS just such a classification.

A very dear family member, by son, belongs to that class of citizen. He is a US citizen by birth, and has had no other citizenship than this, ever in his life. Yet, he is NOT a “natural-born” citizen, and can never be, because he was not born in the United States. His US citizenship does not derive from the Constitution, but from statue law.

On this issue, I will admit that there is controversy, but that controversy arises not because there is genuine uncertainty, but because there has been a long and unfortunate corruption of public understanding, and a proliferation of confusion in the minds of the muddled public. Despite this, the position you are espousing is profoundly wrong-headed, and factually and legally incorrect.

The courts need to act to introduce much needed clarity on the matter.

How could the FFs have meant this alternate definition when there was no discussion or documentation to support it? If they didn't discuss it, that means that it was understood, and for that understanding you must look to English Common law. Under that law, a person born of two citizen parents, or a citizen father, outside the country was considered natural born. But a person born in the country was natural born regardless of the citizenship of the parents, although there exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats, or of an occupying army. But any statute law changes to this definition only apply to citizenship at birth, not to natural born citizenship as that term is used in the Constitution. Congress cannot define terms in the Constitution, except by passing an amendment.

But "natural born" only matters in eligibility to the office of President and Vice President. For all other purposes, citizen at birth, naturalized citizen and natural born citizen all have the same rights and obligations, and all are eligible for any other office, unless state law or Constitutions provide otherwise for state or local offices,although I'm not aware that any do.