Replies

The words "natural born" do not occur on any of the explanatory information that I was also given about his situation. My understanding has been that he could not run for POTUS, just as my husband could not play rugby for Wales. But that is not explicitly written anywhere on the official info given to me that day.

There's never been an official Supreme Court decision.

That said, after studying the matter for WAY longer than I should've ever put into it, I conclude that "natural born citizen" is, to all purposes, simply an equivalent term to "born a citizen." Although I confess it would've been a heck of a lot easier if they had just used the latter term instead of writing what was an old common-law term of art.

This is also the general consensus of legal scholars.

You son can run for President if he wants to. On meeting the other criteria (age and residency), he's eligible.

I conclude that "natural born citizen" is, to all purposes, simply an equivalent term to "born a citizen."

Article II specifies “citizen” at the time of adoption of the constitution, and “natural born citizen” thereafter.

“Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”. If a naturalization statute creates “natural born citizens” then there is no need for the Grandfather Clause, “citizen” would have sufficed.

Equating "born a citizen" with “natural born citizen” is an impermissible construction.

That said, after studying the matter for WAY longer than I should've ever put into it, I conclude that "natural born citizen" is, to all purposes, simply an equivalent term to "born a citizen."

Which just goes to prove that some people cannot learn anything, nor do they have the facility of reason.

When Congress INTENTIONALLY SETS the criteria of "naturalization" "At BIRTH", you can be "born" a citizen, but this does not make you a "natural" citizen.

Although I confess it would've been a heck of a lot easier if they had just used the latter term instead of writing what was an old common-law term of art.

Yes, it would have been, and No, it's not an old "common-law" term of art. The American version is an EXPLICIT rejection of the "English Common Law" meaning of "natural." Let us have Lord Coke explain what the English mean by usage of the word "Natural" in their "common law" definition. Here is William Rawle quoting "Lord Coke."

Lord Coke puts the very case; "Wherefore, to conclude this point, (and to exclude all that hath been or could be objected against it, ) if the obedience and legiance of the subject to his sovereign be due by the law of nature, if that law be parcel of the laws, as well of England as of all other nations, and is immutable and that postnati and we of England are united by birthright, in obedience and legiance (which is the true cause of natural subjection by the law of nature,) it followeth, that Calvin, the plaintiff, being born under one legiance to one King cannot be an alien born."

Lord Coke is referring to a very different understanding of the "law of nature"; That the King rules by divine right, and that because of this, all men born in his Kingdom owe a natural and perpetual allegiance to the King.

But even Lord Coke realizes that Allegiance CANNOT be divided, even under the English Usage of "Natural Born."

So you see Jeff, even if you USE English Law, it precludes multiple allegiances and multiple claims upon someones' citizenship.