All Presidents subsequent to Andrew Jackson were born within the United States of America and after the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications stipulated by ART. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 is whether a child born abroad of American parents is "a natural born citizen" in the sense of the clause, or not. It is clear that such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. 1 Whatever the term "natural born" means, it no doubt does not include a person who is naturalized. Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ‘‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States’’ are citizens. 2 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . ."3 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 4 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.5 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a case or controversy — as well as how it might decide it — can only be speculated about.
Source:
Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution,
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Senate Document No. 108-17, 2002 Edition: Cases Decided to June 28, 2002
======================================================
Notes:
1) 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
2) Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 886-887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ‘‘Heads of Departments’’ in the appointments clause (see also id. at 917 - Justice Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered ‘‘naturalized’’ by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
3) Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672-675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).
4) 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, § 3 (1709); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).
5) See, e.g., Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968).
However, both parents were NOT US Citizens, the father was Kenyan, the mother a US Citizen. The mother failed to satisfy US Code when she gave birth to her son, so she fails on 2 points. He fails on the 3rd point when he is adopted by an Indonesian National with no reciprocal dual citizenship requirements from his country, so the adoption required that his US Citizenship be renounced. There is no documentation that shows him applying for US Citizenship that can be found yet. There is evidence that he used an Indonesian passport in 1982 at 21 years old..... so...
I have to disagree with you.
Yea, and they took out the words "natural born" in 1795 (footnote 3 is incorrect it was not 1802, but rather 1795 see section 3.)., and have never put them back into into any naturalization or immigration law.
But the very fact that they put them there in 1790 says that the original understanding of "natural born citizen" did not include those born "beyond the sea". The fact that they took them out means that law is no longer in effect. Although from both Blackstone and Vattel it would seem include those born to parents serving the country, as diplomats or in "the armies") but outside of it. The fact that they subsequently left them out may also indicate that someone told them that they did not have the power to redefine a Constitutional term.