Boston Globe: "native born" does not equal "natural born" for Presidential eligibility.

Natural Born Citizen (blog) ^ | March 12, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

[Seizethecarp]

You may add The Boston Globe to the growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be President. Recently, this blog pointed to a similar opinion in the New York Tribune. These pre-dated Breckenridge Long’s similar opinion as stated in the Chicago Legal News.

Recently, one of my readers uncovered this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka “The People’s Lawyer“. (Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the “People’s Lawyer” of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard Law School library.)

The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, stated:

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”

It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens. But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President.

[SunkenCiv]

Or a Reid, which is even worse. ;’)

[SunkenCiv]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[SunkenCiv]

;’)

[bigheadfred]

Well, like I said, Nasty Bastard

The dichotomy that exists between steel and reed, and steal and Reid.

[john mirse]

Republican presidential candidates VOLUNTARILY attach a copy of their long form birth certificates to their primary application in each state.

I hope they do it in order to reassure the American people that they were born in the United States, that they are who they say they are, and that they were NOT adopted by a citizen of another country at some point in their lives.

[cynwoody]

We were born in the mid-west USA and our parents were unnaturalized Russian immigrants. These facts and consequences of the matter dawned on me after WWII service although I thought differently as a child with the idea any one can become POTUSA.

The Supreme Court has never had to rule on who is a natural born citizen. If they ever do, it will be very strange if they don't simply say it means citizen by birth (which would include you — and thank you for your service). Any other interpretation would run counter to the common understanding and require adducing all manner of esoterica predating the 14th Amendment and would seem contrived to fit Obama's facts.

The status of Obama's father was completely known before the election, but the arguments that he wasn't eligible then advanced all depended on his having been born outside the country. Only when that factual argument failed did the birthers attempt a legal argument. See if you can find a thread before the election wherein Vattel, for example, was discussed in this connection.

[Plummz]

The Supreme Court has never had to rule on who is a natural born citizen. If they ever do, it will be very strange if they don't simply say it means citizen by birth

I agree with you that SCOTUS is overrun with traitors.