"CONCLUSION
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally."
His most recent case is over 100 years old and does not consider the developments in citizenship law since 1898. He ignores many cases which have a bearing on Obama' eligibility.
Also, what happens when you apply the last paragraph (in my italics) to Roe vs. Wade? Then by his definition, we must unquestioningly accept it. Despite it being far more repugnant to the Constitution's actual meaning than the questions about Obama's citizenship will ever be. In that case Supreme Court is wrong, and must be overturned, just as the court was wrong in Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott.
Sorry, this article, like the birther movement in general, drew a conclusion first, and then wants the law to support it, instead of seeing what the whole constitution, and ALL relevant case law, says.
The last Supreme Court case pertaining to natural born citizen is the Elg case from the 1930’s. Elg’s Swedish parents came to the US, naturalized before Miss Elg was born, the parents then took their daughter back to Sweden, but at the coming of age, Miss Elg wished to return to the US and thus after her persistant efforts, the Supreme Court decided that Miss Elg, being born to 2 US citizen parents was a natural born citizen and ordered the State Dept to reinstate her passport.
Indeed, men -- dictators and tyrants among them -- may inact various laws that oppose and oppress the people.
That is why the founders depended on "Natural Law" as opposed to mans law.
Man's law -- divorced from "natural" law -- is less stable and enduring.
It pains me that leftest believe that the constitution is JUST a mailable piece of paper to suite the whims of the moment.
That is why it is WISE that the POTUS be elected of and from the pool of the indigenous (in-the genes) people... people born in the country from citizen parents.
That is why Natural Born Citizen -- as defined in this article -- is the best protection from undue foreign influence leading to usurpation of office.
STE=Q
Have any of those developments been a Constitutional amendment? If not, and the answer to that question is indeed no, then the Constitution still means what it meant when written. In that sense, more weight should be given to the earlier cases and writings, rather than later "developments", unless those later developments derived from earlier, but freshly "unearthed" documentation.
The real problem is that for Constitutional purposed, the only time the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" matters is for eligibility to the Office of President. Since no President heretofore has been challenged in the courts as to his Citizenship status, although Chester Arthur *should* have been, the courts have not determined what the meaning of NBC was in 1787. All the cases on both sides of the question, only mention NBC in "dicta", it was not a factor in any of the decisions.
No one has ever been ruled to be, or not be, a natural born citizen, except as part of ruling that they were a citizen, or not, when the question was of their citizenship. Ms. Elg, for example, was declared to be natural born, because she was born in the US of two (then) citizen parents, but all that mattered was that she was a citizen. Similarly, Wong Kim Ark was not declared natural born, but was declared to be a citizen, having been born in the US of two (legal) alien parents.
“Sorry, this article, like the birther movement in general, drew a conclusion first, and then wants the law to support it, instead of seeing what the whole constitution, and ALL relevant case law, says.”
Sorry, but “ALL relevant law” beyond the Constitution has nothing to do with it. The overriding, ultimate law in the USA is the Constitution. No law, statute, regulation overrides the Constitution which IS interpreted ultimately by the Supreme Court. Their interpretation is dictated by precedent and interpretation of what the term meant at the time the Constitution was written.