Let us assume that Barry Soetoro is not qualified to be President. In other words, let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that it can be proven that Barry was born outside of the United States or its outlying territories.
What are you going to do about it? You will file a suit saying that he was not constitutionally qualified to be the President. There are three criteria that must be satisfied for him to be constitutionally qualified:
The term "years of age" is not, to my knowledge, defined in either Constitutional or Statutory Law. (It might be, but I'm not aware of it). So a common-law definition would be applied (as in the anniversary of a person's birth).
The term "residence" is not defined in the Constitution, but it IS defined in law. 8 U.S.C. §1101:
(33) The term "residence" means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.
So any common-law definitions of the term really don't matter. This statutory definition takes precedence.
Likewise, the terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen by birth" have been Statutorily defined...they have been so defined since the first Naturalization Act of 1790. I've repeated those definitions multiple times in the past few days, so I won't bother you with repeating them again. But, as with the term "residence", the statute takes precedence over any common-law references. The only question comes into play if the statute is offensive to the constitution. As shown in Marbury, the courts have invested themselves with the right to determine if a statute is unconstitutional (you may or may not agree with that principle, but just try to change it).
Getting back to this court case that you're going to file, you're going to have to assert that he was not a citizen of the US by birth. Showing the Kenyan Birth Certificate is only the first step. You're also going to have to demonstrate that he does not meet any of the other criteria in the statutory definition of a "citizen by birth." Again, I have quoted that entire section before, so I won't burden you with that. You can read it for yourself here if you're interested in reviewing it.
The alternative to working within the statute is to assert that this entire section of the INA is unconstitutional and should be disregarded in determining whether Ø is a citizen by birth (or, for that matter, a citizen in any regard whatsoever). If you wanted to make this a case of constitutional law, you could cite Vattel, but the way you'd do it is to use Vattel as substantiation of "original intent" and to show that this section of the INA comes nowhere near meeting the intent of the framers when they discussed "natural born citizen" status, and, thus, is unconstitutional. I think you could potentially have a really good shot at that, considering the verbiage within Article 2 and the verbiage in the 14th Amendment.
If section 1301 of the INA is thrown out as being unconstitutional, the only alternative is then to use Vattel's definition of "natural born." But until that time, you've got to use applicable statutory law in defining your terms. Title 8 of the US Code (i.e., the immigration and nationality act) is applicable, as it deals with immigration, naturalization, AND nationality.
Or you could do it the simple way: you, as the plaintiff produce Ø's Kenyan Birth Certificate, you, as the plaintiff, show that his father was an alien and his mother didn't meet the residency requirements to pass on citizenship at the time of his birth, and *boom* -- he's not only not a "natural born citizen", he's not a citizen in any fashion (unless he produces a naturalization certificate...which he doesn't have). In theory, such a case wouldn't even have to go to the SCOTUS to be resolved; it could be resolved at the district court level.
That's why I prattle on about statutes...because they ARE pertinent when implementing Article II Section 1.
Barry is prima facie unqualified because he claims a foreign father and foreign citizenship at birth. Your scenario is based on a faulty premise that encompasses statist, unConstitutional and therefore anti-American assumptions.
Statutory law does not take precedent over the Constitution.
And no statutory law defines “natural born citizen” anyway. (The section of the 1790 law you cite was repealed; presumably because someone (John Jay) pointed out they could not redefine terms in the Constitution.) The INA statutes have no bearing on the issue at hand.
Your attempt to elevate statutes to something that can redefine language and vitiate the Constitution is of a piece with your conflation earlier of “law of nations” and “international law”... the former being of a piece with and an outgrowth of natural rights, the concept on which this country was founded... the latter being a “League of Nations”-type concept where our rights can be redefined and and eliminated by by politicians or foreign judges.
You are prattling on about whether or not Obama was naturalized at birth... but that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether he is indigenous to America, a natural-born citizen.
Natural-born citizenship is part of our natural rights and doesn’t have anything to do with naturalization statutes. You are either intentionally obfuscating, or you are just so predisposed to loathe the natural rights of human beings that you have rendered yourself incoherent and irrelevant.
No it doesn't. Statutory definitions are often only for the purpose of the law wherein they are defined. But even if if general, for purposes of Constitutional interpretation, the meaning of a term remains the same as it was when the Constitution was passed and ratified.
One example of the limited nature of statutory definitions is that of "firearm" in the National Firearms Act. Title 26 USC Chapter 53 That definition does not apply to Title 18 section 921>Title 18 USC Chapter 44 Which has it's own definition, which in turn applies only to that chapter.
the terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen by birth" have been Statutorily defined...they have been so defined since the first Naturalization Act of 1790.
No they haven't. The 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act, which did not contain any definition of natural born. Nor has any subsequent statute.
By the terms of Title 8 USC 1101, the definition of "residence" you give, is only applicable to Title 8 Chapter 12. The Constitution overrides any statute. Statutory definitions cannot be used to interpret the Constitution. Where there is conflict, the Constitution overrides any statute.