Replies

The term Natural Born Citizen comes from our constitution, and can't be changed except by amendment, and that has been tried at least two dozen times.

Actually, the First Congress (1789-1790) passed Naturalization Act of 1790 which said the following:

…the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens…

Now this law has been repealed. The current Act in place is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (as amended, particularly in 1986), but the point is that the term "natural born" has been defined by Congress from the beginning.

Does any of that mean the Ø is qualified to be President by virtue of citizenship? Well, show me an actual birth certificate (either Kenyan or Hawaiian) and I'll know one way or the other.

No, the statement in 1789 was an acknowledged mistake. It was corrected quickly. No Congressional act can change it. Read Marbury v. Madison. The author of Marbury, the basis for our interpretation of the separation of powers, John Marshall, knowing there had been some confusion, re-stated. the definition and cited the source, Vattel, explicitly in his decision on The Venus, 1814. No congressional act can alter a provision of the constitution. That is probably the key notion to be come from Marbury.

Here is the citation from The Venus, 12 U.S. (1814):

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

John Marshall was referring the the French edition, and used the term 'Indigene'. Later justices, and the Chitty English translation of Law of Nations uses 'natural born citizen'.

Should you really be interested (I believe that many comments are designed to sow confusion about our laws to enable the socialist movement and their current flagbearer) find the congressional address by 14th Amendment author John Bingham. He makes it clear that nothing in the 14th Amendment had bearing on the understanding of "Natural Born Citizen", "about which there hsa never been any doubt." I guess Obama has inspired some doubt!

Now this law has been repealed.

Yes it was, in 1795, five years after first passage, not in 1952 as you seem to wish to imply. Basically the same law was passed again (at least that section of it) in 1795, without the language you quoted..

It's thought that they realized they could not define the term, that it was beyond their delegated power to do so.