Replies

There have been a series of attempts by Congress to alter the “natural born citizen” requirement to the U.S. Constitution without using the approved Constitutional method of changing the document. To do that, however, requires that the acutal definition of “natural born citizen” would be explained, the explanation being in Minor v. Happersett (1874), where the unanimous holding of the SCOTUS was that a natural born citizen was born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents.

The following was posted on RF quite a while ago, and I will excerpt it here (the entire document is 26 pages long.)

* * * * * * * * * * *

Posted on October 28th, 2009 by David-Crockett

The American Justice Foundation published

This article was written in 2005 by an attorney affiliated with the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis (that has ties to Mr. Obama) promoting the idea of doing away with the “natural born citizen” requirement for serving as president.

Chicago-Kent Law Review

2006

81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 275

STUDENT NOTE: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

NAME: Sarah P. Herlihy*

BIO: * J.D. Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005. The author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 2004-2005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note.

SUMMARY:

… The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly unAmerican,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision. … Additionally, considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a “foreigner” coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland. … Even though this concern is not a legitimate reason to vote against abolishing the natural born citizen clause because many natural born Americans are Muslims, many Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the possibility that a naturalized citizen would be more likely to be a Muslim, Hindu, or some other religion besides Christian. … Accordingly, Americans may rely on their belief that globalization is effectively eating away at “America” by lessening the strength of symbols such as the presidency to justify their decision to leave the natural born citizen requirement in place. …

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Globalists are opposed to the requirement, “natural born citizen”. Not surprisingly, that includes most Republican elitists, like the Romneys and the Bush family.