Replies

I *am* sticking to the law. I’m explaining YOUR quote, from Luria v. U.S. The specific words from the 1913 Supreme Court case.

Wherein the Supreme Court said that the difference between a “naturalized citizen” and a “native citizen” is only in Presidential eligibility.

I included your name since I was sort of inserting myself into your conversation.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

What Van Devanter held in Luria was that a naturalized citizen was not on an "equal footing" with the "native citizen" in respect to the issue of eligibility to be President. Van Devanter was an extremely careful and conservative strict constructionist. He carefully used the words "native citizen," not "natural born citizen." In doing so he cited the well known opinion of Marshall in Osborn v. Bank where Marshall makes the point that a "naturalized citizen" is a "creature of the law" as opposed to one of the Constitution. Marshall, in his concurring opinion in the Venus, where Marshall was joined by Livingston, made clear that the phrase "natural born citizen" differs from "native citizen" as the former is used in Art II and that as used in Article II the phrase was taken by the Framers from Vattel and in fact Marshall gives the exact translation from Vattel in the Venus. Thus, it is evident that in carefully adhering to Marshall's opinion in Luria Van Devanter was not holding that "native citizen" as a phrase is not the same as the phrase "natural born citizen" as that phrase describes presidential eligibility. It is necessary to be a "native citizen" to be eligible to be President, but neither Van Devanter in Luria or Marshall in Osborn v. Bank held that being "native born" was sufficient to be President.