Replies

If our side is as willing to toss out the requirements of the Constitution, just so that our guy (who isn’t any more “qualified” than their guy was) can get in because we like him — what does that do for our argument as desiring to “protect the Constitution”?

THANK YOU!... and well said!

Well, it would be if it weren't for the fact that Road Glide is taking the Fox mischaracterization for granted, assuming Barry and Bob's situations to be parallel, and is unaware that the citizenship status of someone born abroad to American citizens isn't discussed at all in the 14th Amendment. The author of the Minor v Happersett decision, referring specifically to the 14th Amendment, said that, though it was still undecided whether a child born on American soil to non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen, it was indisputable that a child born on American soil to citizen parents was a natural born citizen.

"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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 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.
--Page 88 U. S. 168

It doesn't follow that the uncertainty attached to the status of a child born on American soil to non-citizen parents means that a child born abroad to American parents is not a natural born citizen. In fact, there was legislation very early on that declared them to be so.

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. [Footnote 8] These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also. [Footnote 9]
--Page 88 U. S. 168

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.

Which is exactly what Vattel said in § 215. - 'By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular'.

-----

Coincidentally (or not) the laws of the Republic of Kenya say pretty much the same-

Chapter 6 - Citizenship - Section 87
Persons who became citizens on 12th December, 1963 1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December. 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963: Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.

Obama, being a natural born British subject, was 'grandfathered' into the Republic of Kenya with his father....just as the Founders were 'grandfathered' into our own Constitution!

-----

Honestly, I don't know if the Founders would laugh or just shoot us for how we've taken a very simplistic concept and convoluted it almost beyond recognition.

Natural born citizenship is independent of location and strictly hereditary ....you get it from your parents. If they are both not citizens at the time of your birth, you are NOT 'natural born'.