To think this is settled law is obtuse.
There are other interview quotes attributed to Scalia in which he indicates "natural born" means born in the U.S.
Many countries will give a person citizenship if their grandparents were born in that country. They can't be president?
A country can claim as their citizens by jus sanguinis or jus soli or both. We get dual citizens because one country claims through parentage and the other by being born in country. These people in the United States could have obligations of loyalty to both countries making for conflicting interests. The Supreme Court before Scalia came on the scene have decided so and as it is logical.
Someone whose parent was born in Scotland can be recognized as a British citizen by descent.
I think birthers are morons and need to get over it.
Scalia was making a comment in oral arguments. That is NOT anything like a decision.
For a discussion of the law, see here:
It covers all sides and gives extensive citations.
“It has been pointed out that more recent cases have held that the seemingly exclusive language of the Fourteenth Amendment of citizenship being limited only to those who are “born or naturalized in the United States,” is applicable only with regard to Fourteenth Amendment first-sentence-citizenship, and is not necessarily the exclusive means of acquiring citizenship “at birth,” since the category of “at birth” citizenship can clearly be expanded by law adopted by Congress. Such cases indicate that the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a “floor” for citizenship at birth, or for naturalization, which can be expanded by federal law.
The Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei explained that under the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause the requirement that one would have to be either born in the United States or naturalized in the United States were designations for “Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence” citizenship only.
The category or designation of citizen “at birth” or “by birth” could, however, as expressly noted by the Court, be expanded and “modified by statute” (as it had been in England with respect to natural born subjects for more than 600 years): “We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.”
It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status. In Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in” the United States, or could stay abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship:
[T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so.
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and”naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”
Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to”involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23).
The Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically defines”naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,” and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and jurisprudence,one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could not be considered to be “naturalized.”
Which gets us to the other part of the law as enacted by congress. That being there are several provisions placed upon the US mother of a child either born in and out of wedlock as to whether the child is a citizen at birth or not. In Cruz's case he appears to meet the requirements of citizen at birth. I tend to believe citizen at birth and natural born citizen are the one in the same.
If we try to pin Jus Soli down as the requirement for President which no congressional definition can override we are stuck with anchor babies in perpetuity.
So, a person’s right to run for President of the United States is subject to the citizenship law of a foreign country?
Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
self ping for later
“The meaning of “natural born” is not so clear.”
Why?
We know they had more in mind than just “citizen” because that term was used elsewhere.
Again, the Naturalization Act of 1790 defines it as being born of citizen parents. Also, the same Act stipulated that citizenship could not descend from a father who was not a citizen and citizenship depended on the father’s status at the time.
Yes, yes, the Act is no longer the law, but it clearly demonstrates original intent of the Constitution, which is supposed to be valued by conservatives.
Millions of us were taught in American history classes that “natural born” meant being born of citizen parents.
This is incredibly consequential considering the 5-4 make-up of the court, and considering that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been widely rumored to be considering leaving the court.
If Obama is able to replace Scalia and Ginsburg the Supreme Court could shift to 3-6 in favor of liberal ideological worldview prior to the end of President Obama’s term in office.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/13/breaking-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies/
Scalia’s unexpected passing sets up a politically charged battle to replace him. Mere moments after his death was confirmed, Conn Carroll, a key staffer for Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), promised Republicans would block anyone that Obama nominated.