Replies

Here is the point I have made from the very beginning and still maintain today.

It is NOT settled law. No one knows how Scotus would rule- and some even argue that SCOTUS has no authority to make the decision.

All you really have to do is listen to the oral arguments Nguyen case to see that it is up in the air.

NO ONE KNOWS THE DEFINITION.

It could very well be two US citizens born on US soil. Ginsberg doesn’t not hold with that theory - at least it seems she didn’t in the oral argument.

Personally, I don’t think a court would rule that way today but that is a personal opinion.

Those that go around claiming that this is set in stone are wrong.

There is a very interesting exchange about the Word Naturalized in the oral argument. . Does the term Naturalized encompass natural born citizens. Rogers V Bellei suggest that it does according to the lawyer.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071

I personally feel that the correct way to understand the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" is not to start today and work your way backwards through court decisions, but to start where it began (Article II debate) and work your way backward for precedence and forward for usage.

What modern courts have to say bout it is based on the filter of previous precedents of other courts who may or may not have gotten THEIR understanding correct.

Go straight to the source; The meaning and intent of the founders in Drafting Article II. I have long argued that an interpretation that does not yield the founder's intended result is a WRONG interpretation, regardless of what the courts say.

If the 14th amendment definition of "citizen" meant the same thing as Article II "natural born citizen" then Article II would not serve the purpose for which it is intended. (To eliminate foreign influence in the office of the executive.)

You mention Rogers v Bellei, and I think the salient fact to be learned from that case is that a "born citizen" is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen." In that case the "born citizen" had his citizenship stripped away from him because he had not met residency requirements. A "natural born citizen" does not have to meet any residency requirements.

Look to the original intent rather than hundreds of years later court decisions about what they THINK it means.