Wow - am i missing something the initial draft of the constitution contained something completely different than what was written in this article. That difference is SIGNIFICANT in understanding the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”.
The Original Text was
No person hall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the states, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.
Please notice the “born a citizen of the United States”
this phase is what John Jay was specifically calling out in his note to Washington. John Hay was petitioning to change this to “Natural Born Citizen” as this clause defined in “Laws of Nation” was understood to be born on sovereign soil to 2 citizen parents.
This is SIGNIFICANT as it implies that being born a citizen was not good enough, as John Jay implies.
Another egregious error in the omission of the definition offered by John Bingham. John Bingham was the framer of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment defined “Naturalization” Although the 14th amendment did not include the term Natural Born Citizen. During congressional hearings on the 14th amendment John Bingham offered this definition of Natural Born Citizen into the congressional record :
“All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touch natural born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.
these two omissions are significant as they harden the intent of the founders in finding that Natural Born Citizen differs from born a citizen or citizen by birth. And indicate that a Natural Born Citizen is one who is born within the sovereign nation to 2 citizens.
If you take a firm constructionist view of the constitution then the founders intent is clear.
As to this definition both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not eligible to hold the office of President Of The United States of America
Thank you for your compelling and valid points.
” ... ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as this clause defined in ‘Laws of Nation’ was understood to be born on sovereign soil to 2 citizen parents.”
This would be very sensible if so stated. I’m not familier with “Laws of Nations” (and no, I don’t expect you to educate me), nor things “understood.” With the Constitution we must abide with things written, rather than presumed.
“... being born a citizen was not good enough, as John Jay implies.”
For this we would have to know what John Jay was thinking, as opposed to what he stated, know his thoughts rather than his writing; to which there is no answer, only argument.
“... the definition offered by John Bingham ... the framer of the 14th Amendment.”
I discount this argument offered. This would be post-Civil War (and the source of much mischief) althought it actually reinforces my argument. He speaks of two types of citizen; Natural Born and Naturalized, which was addressed previously: “Is Ted Cruz a US Citizen? Yes. Is Ted Cruz a Naturalized citizen? No. Therefore, he is a Natural Born citizen.” There is no third category of citizenship.
I hope you recognize, this argument for non-elligibility has foundation in Ted Cruz’s political enemies, who fear disruption of their comfortable culture in Washington DC (you?). Ted Cruz had US Citizenship at birth, obtained most certainly by his being born. If Canada extends citizenship, for whatever reason, that does not interfere with his qualification for President.