Free Republic

You wrote “Just to cut through all the post-modern bullshiite, a “Natural Born American Citizen” is someone born to two American citizens on territory subject to American jurisdiction. No dual citizenship. No equivocation. Obama had the choice upon reaching his majority of choosing Indonesian, British, Kenyan, or American* citizenship. a “Natural Born Citizen” could have no such choice, being exclusively American.”

That is incorrect. Please see the following:

James Madison: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

John Bingham: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”

Comments from Lynch v. Clarke, 1844: “Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

Comments from the SCOTUS ruling U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark. 1898: “Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth”

The U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”

History, legislative opinion and case law all disagree with you.

You said “Things that are “natural” — “being in accordance with or determined by nature” — require no definition.

They just are.

If a person’s citizenship status has to be defined by an amendment, a law, or a statute, they are not “natural” born. They are “statutory” citizens — for example”

Would you say that freedom of speech, religion or the right to bear arms are natural? If so, why are they codified in amendment? Your argument does not up if applied to the Bill of Rights. If those rights are natural, they just are and never needed to be spelled out, yet the founding fathers felt that they were important enough to explicitly specify.

ALL of our citizenships, even the founding fathers citizenships, were codified into law of some sort. Your argument makes no sense.

Citation please, on what was defended in the continental congress. I have cited surpreme court cases and amendments to the constitution that fully support what I have said. Please cite your source.

There is no amendment to the constitution or SCOTUS ruling that says both parents (or any parents) are required to be citizens to confer citizenship upon birth to a child born in the US

the SCOTUS has consistently pointed out that they were not defined in the constitution and have, to date, not defined them. The US constitution lays out citizenship requirements, however, in the 14th amendment.

Presidents can’t veto amendments.

Registering for Selective Service is in no way an eligibility requirement for the office of President.

U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark was decided in 1898, 23 years after Minor v. Happersett. The Kim Wong Ark case explicitly dealt with citizenship.

The 14th amendment contains the citizenship clause that has been consistently interpreted by both congress and the supreme court to confer, except in few cases that do not in any way apply to Obama, Jindal or Rubio, citizenship to a child upon birth within the borders of the US. It does not rest upon parents being citizens in any way.

See Elk v. Wilkins and U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark.