Fact checking Natural Born Citizen

I question the accuracy of the below message in regard to the assertion of the third paragraph.  Minor v Hapersett (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162) case dealt with the question of whether a woman citizen could vote in Missouri.  It did not seek to discover the conclusive meaning of natural born citizen, and the Court confessed doubts about the common-law meaning in its dicta.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

In the very next paragraph, the Court went on to describe how Congress had extended whatever the Common Law had actually meant by natural born citizen.

"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. ^[n8]"

The court seemed to conclude, as I do, that Congress could firm up (change) the meaning of natural born citizen in order to comply with common sense.  As an example, Congress addressed the question of whether a child born of citizen parents outside the USA had natural born citizen status.

However, I can imagine circumstances in which US Citizen parents could give birth to a child in a foreign land having a culture and government utterly alien and inimical to those of the USA.  Such a child could hardly help developing deep-seated loyalties to the land, culture, religion, and people of birth.  I know that something similar happened to Barack Hussein Obama, and he has confessed as much in his writings and behaviors. That is why so many American, with good reason in my opinion, doubt his loyalties.

The whole purpose of the natural born citizen prerequisite to serving as US President consists of ensuring the people of the USA that a foreign power has not influenced the President to become detached from or disloyal to the USA and its people. It has NOTHING to do with the right of a putative citizen to serve as President.  It has everything to do with protecting the nation and its people from foreign influence on the chief executive.

Supporting laws should accomplish that purpose.  If they do not, such as by giving way to the modern concept of political correctness that would let any foreigner become President, they are bad laws.

Read the Wikipedia article on Natural Born Citizen.  You might enjoy it.  And then you might wonder how so many experts could wallow in such confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

I think you will find much more enjoyment in Jon Roland's analysis, specifically with respect to Barack Obama's eligibility for the Presidency (and read his comments below the article):

http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: d
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Subject: Your Fact checking

Seems like you need to take your articles by line and "fact - check" your own journalism, or lack thereof(of journalism).

You stated twice that the supreme court never has ruled on 'natural born citizen" which isn't true, so you shouldn't rely on statements of others but do some 'journalism'.

In 1875 the US sup Ct in Minor v Happersett looked back at the founders meaning of the term and ruled that to be Natural born one had to have citizen parents(note the s). This is standing precedent having never been overturned. Also note, no Act may overrule the Constitution, only an amendment.

If two citizen parents were not required for 'Natural Born Citizen' status then there is no possible logical reason for the adoption clause in Article 2 Section 1. All the founders were charter citizens with non-citizen parents because the country did not exist when their parents gave birth to them. And there were many citizens at that time who were born on U.S. soil but not to citizen parents for the same obvious reason. The only distinguishable difference between the "citizens at the time" and a "natural born citizen" is the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth. The founders knew it would take a generation to produce the first 'Natural Born Citizen' born on U.S. soil from parents who were citizens to produce a candidate free from any direct foreign birthright allegiances. The founders needed to include the charter citizens in order to have Presidential candidates (themselves) until a 'Natural Born Citizen' could be available for candidacy. At the time of the adoption there were only two groups of charter citizens available for the candidate pool...native born citizens (born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents) and naturalized citizens (those born abroad). If either of these groups were eligible to hold office as President then there would be no reason for the adoption clause nor would there be a need to distinguish 'Natural Born Citizens'. And to those who would suggest that the adoption clause was because the 'soil' was British before the adoption and that it was strictly a matter of jus soli, the article would read 'no person except a native born citizen' instead of 'no person except a natural born citizen' as it was well understood and a part of the language of the day to regard a person born on the soil a native born citizen.

The Constitution followed Vattel's, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758). Emmerich de Vattel wrote "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.Book 1 Chapter 19, section 212.

 

For a historical note:President Chester Arthur faced a challenge by those who believed his father was not a citizen when Chester was born. Before the authorities could seize them Arthur took all his family documents and burned them in his back yard effectively covering up the fact of his ineligibility to hold office. Would he have done this if he didnt believe this would have made him ineligible? It was only recently in 2009 that a researcher found documentation which confirmed that Arthur's critics were right about his ineligibility because his father was not a citizen at the time of Chester's birth.

Currently Santorum(Italian father), Jindal(Indian parents), Rubio(Cuban parents), Cruz(Cuban father), are NOT Natural born citizens, nor is Obama(British father).