National Review Online: The Cruz Birthers

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343914/cruz-birthers-eliana-johnson ^

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.

Snip~

Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”

Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization

[Fantasywriter]

I will say this: he is as condescending as a Dem & as boring as a politician. Doesn’t prove anything, but as you say, it would sure explain a lot.

[DiogenesLamp]

I consider defending our Constitution, our history and the truth, from those who would twist them, to be fairly important.

If you did, you wouldn't be working on the wrong side.

When we throw those things out of the window, that's not a good thing.

So stop repeating stupid crap that you read. It's STUPID.

[Kansas58]

Your view is a minority view in the conservative movement.
Your view is a minority view, I would bet, even among Freepers.
You do not get to decide what side anyone is on, on any argument but this one, and even then your judgment is off.

YOU are wrong. We might have identical voting records for POTUS, but YOU are on the wrong side on the birther issue.

Speak for YOURSELF, when you do the “us vs them” stuff you presume far too much.

YOU ARE NEARLY ALONE with your crackpot theories.

[Fantasywriter]

Wow—powerful, logical arguments all.

Except that there wasn’t a smidgen of logic or argumentation in the entire rant.

Why DO people who struggle so mightily w logic claim to be so good at it? Just one of life’s little mysteries, I guess.

[noinfringers2]

I didn’t see the most important of action’s i.e verify given. The past elections might demonstrate those criterion that you listed but as to cases like Obama these alone do not encompass a valid eligibility. An ‘examination’ can be faulty or colored, a ‘consideration’ can be shallow or misdirected, and ‘approval’ can be bought or forged and I can agree all three point words apply to Obama. ‘Verify’ was certainly missing.

[DiogenesLamp]

Truth: The Opinion in The Venus doesn’t even contain the words “natural born citizen” at all.

That is F*&%$^# immaterial to the point. Apparently you are too ignorant to use synonyms but people of that era were better educated. Here you pop off with this obvious point as if it supports your argument. It doesn't.

He is trying to establish to what degree a citizen of America (natural born or naturalized, it made no difference) who was living and actively participating in the society of England should be respected as an American, and to what degree he should be treated similarly to the Englishmen he was acting like.

You don't get to presumptuously "interpret" Chief Justice Marshall's words for us. We can read for ourselves what he is saying, and what he is saying is that Vattel's definition is the best description of Citizenship of which he is aware. You just don't like what he says, so you are trying to add a Penumbra of crap to them that doesn't exist.

Therefore, Marshall’s quote in The Venus contributes absolutely nothing to the meaning of “natural born citizen” in American law.

Nothing that will get through your think layer of denial anyway. It doesn't get much plainer than what Chief Justice Marshall says. This just demonstrates how powerful is your self delusion.

It's been claimed that Justice Washington also supports the "both/and" theory. He doesn't.

Says "Jeff the might and powerful!" Bullsh*t! Washington also cites Vattel, and points out that alien residents exist as an inferior form of citizenry.

Consistent with others such as Marshall who have quoted Vattel as an authority on international relations and international law - but not on domestic citizenship

Listen to yourself! You seem to be completely unaware that "citizenship" is exclusively a matter of International law, not domestic law. It is only by the fact of other nations existence that there is even the concept of "citizenship."

On the contrary, Marshall supports the well known and completely accepted principle, first articulated by Founder and Framer Alexander Hamilton, that terms in the Constitution ("natural born" is one of these) can be understood in the light of their definitions from English law, since that was where we got our legal terminology:

Yeah, that same English law which said we didn't have a right to secede from England because we owe perpetual allegiance to the Crown. It is mind numbingly stupid that you see using British Subject law as consistent with the American Independence won from England, WHICH WAS AGAINST THIS VERY LAW!!!!!

Truth: The overwhelming rejection of David Ramsay’s ideas on citizenship - 36 to 1 - shows that those ideas did not represent our Founding Fathers and early leaders, and that his citizenship doctrine was flat-out wrong.

No it didn't. Madison's entire argument was based on being a member of a community, not on the fact that he was simply born there. You misconstrue what Madison meant when he used the word "Place." You do the same thing to Madison that you do to Bingham. Ignore the larger argument and take out the sound bites that you prefer.

Again, I've done no such thing. You're the one who has distorted Bingham's position.

First of all, Bingham's words carry no legal weight whatsoever, since he was simply a Congressman speaking on the floor of the House. Any Congressman can express an opinion.

Okay you littel turd burger. If Bingham's words mean nothing (a Ridiculous argument itself) then why did you not only quote them, but intentionally cut out the parts where he explains IN DETAIL what he meant? No weight huh? You sure quoted him a h*ll of a lot when you thought he supported your argument. Now that we have demonstrated him to be completely against you're argument, you want to discount him? No dice chump.

Now as for your first Idiotically stupid assertion, (That Bingham's Words hold no meaning) Here is what Justice Black had to say about the 14th amendment in Duncan v Louisiana.

my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.

I'm not going to address the rest of your attempt at sophistry. You've been hammered dead to rights.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Would you care to explain HOW the Wong Kim Ark court determined he was a *natural-born* citizen when that wasn't even the question they'd been asked?

That's easy. Two reasons:

1. You didn't get my 'A' and 'B' example in the other thread, so I'll make it more concrete. Let's say the question is whether someone lives in Texas. If I spend hundreds of words demonstrating that they live in Houston, I'll still end by saying "and therefore she lives in Texas" because that was the question asked. It doesn't negate the fact that my whole proof of that was based on their living in Houston; similarly, the fact that the court concluded by saying that WKA was a citizen doesn't negate the fact that there whole reasoning was based on demonstrating that he was a natural-born citizen...

2. ...a fact the dissenting judges recognized. They wrote, "it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural-born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances." They wouldn't say that in the dissent unless they recognized that in fact that was what the decision meant.

[Jeff Winston]

Here, let me help you guys out a bit.

Whitepages.com says there are at least 57 different Jeffrey Winstons in the United States.

Of course, those are only the ones listed in the phone directory. :-)

[Jeff Winston]

YOU ARE NEARLY ALONE with your crackpot theories.

Yes, he is nearly alone with his crackpot theories.

There are a few here that have bought into the theory. But they're pretty much always the same people.

I do actually think most FReepers regard them as crackpots, or at least wrong. Of course, there's no way to know for sure.

I was discussing this a night or two ago with a relative who is studying psychology. She was talking about the various reasons people believe stuff. I told her that one of the reasons people believe stuff is because they are around somebody else who believes it. And that you can come up with a theory pretty much at random, and the evidence can be TOTALLY against it (like the theory it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen).

Then I struggled to come up with another example that doesn't involve birthers. I said, "It works better if you can make it sound plausible, and if the evidence is complicated enough that most people won't look at it..."

So I said, "Okay. Here's an example. You could claim that shape-shifting aliens from the planet Kutran, from a star in the constellation Orion, are secretly controlling the United States government. You can then find government documents that don't specifically say that aliens don't exist, and a few people who will claim to be experts, and one or two who will claim to have personal knowledge. And you could get a few people on board, and then because those people are convinced, there are other people who would decide that the whole theory must be a credible one. And in fact, not only credible - it's absolutely true. And then anyone who denies that the theory is true, well, it's because they're an agent of the Kutranians, or perhaps an actual shape-shifting Kutranian in human guise."

"S_______'s boyfriend D_____ basically actually believes that," she replied.

[DiogenesLamp]

Heh. Are you now admitting that you have doubts about your own theory? Or are you confessing to being a fool?

Please do try to keep up. I am acknowledging the obvious fact that some people of the era held seriously wrong beliefs about the founders intentions regarding "natural born citizen."

You, on the other hand, are absolutely certain that nobody ever entertained ANY OTHER NOTION than that the Subjectship Law of England prevails as defining our Citizenry. I don't pretend your side doesn't exist. I acknowledge that a bunch of them thought we were following British law. You just refuse to consider the possibility that MOST American Founders of the time had been reading Vattel for a couple of Decades, and were heavily relying on it to create our Second Constitution. It's that CERTAINTY which marks you as a fool.

As for me, I've spent the last couple of years basing my conclusions on the evidence, rather than on some theory of what I think natural born citizenship ought to be, and then trying to cram history and law into my theory. So I've been open to changing my mind at any point.

"Evidence" that you sought out and cherry picked to arrive at your pre-determined conclusions. We are constantly hammering you with stuff you've never seen, but it is far too late to do any good, for you made up your mind before you even began.

Except now, it's hard to believe there's anything terribly important about the subject that I haven't read. I've presented here tons of evidence from early authorities that confirm the historical understanding of natural born citizenship, and say that your theory couldn't possibly be more wrong.

You keep citing Rawle, over and over again, and also you attempt to Push St. George Tucker into your camp, but I recall seeing quotes from him which dispel him as a source for you're argument. You are pretty much stuck with a single British Loyalist, British Trained Lawyer with an English perspective on subject law. You misrepresent Madison, you don't even bother to address Monroe, and you dismiss Publius and David Ramsey, Aristotle, Mathew Bacon, etc. without so much as a mussed hair.

You say that as if it were in some way important.

Obviously not on your level of comprehension.

Dumas was an influential American in the Netherlands!

And here your ignorance shines through as always. That, and you are once more demonstrated to be LYING when you said you've read all my arguments. Charles William Frederic Dumas was NOT an American. He was a Born in Germany to French parents. Learn what you are talking about!!!!

He sent Ben Franklin 3 copies of Vattel's book!

One of which Franklin used as a CODE KEY FOR ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS WITH AMERICAN AGENTS IN EUROPE!

Ben Franklin said thank you!

Yeah, that's about the level of your understanding. You think Rawle absorbed the entirety of the founders ideas on "natural citizenship" by having dinner with them, but Franklin could have retained nothing from reading Vattel for use as a code book.

Oh - and don't forget to accuse anyone who debunks your BS of "lying." Or of being "paid."

Well, the first one is pretty consistently true. I can't speak for others, but i've certainly caught YOU lying. You are still trying to run away from it. As for being paid, I've never suggested such. (Again, you keep claiming to know what i've said, but you keep popping off with stuff I never did say.) No, i'm firmly convinced that there are plenty of bone headed Republicans who want to believe whatever they hear. Furthermore, given the absolutely horrible quality of your work, I would be greatly surprised if anyone was willing to pay you for it.

[Jeff Winston]

That is F*&%$^# immaterial to the point. Apparently you are too ignorant to use synonyms but people of that era were better educated. Here you pop off with this obvious point as if it supports your argument. It doesn't.

Hahahahaha. And "citizen," except for the lack of allegiance to a king isn't a virtual synonym with "subject?" And "natural born" when applied to "citizen" means something completely different from "natural born" when applied to "subject?"

You really are too funny. In one sense. Although I do agree with Kansas58 that in most senses, you're not funny at all.

You don't get to presumptuously "interpret" Chief Justice Marshall's words for us. We can read for ourselves what he is saying, and what he is saying is that Vattel's definition is the best description of Citizenship of which he is aware.

No. Marshall quite obviously isn't making a point regarding citizenship at all.

Again, he doesn't even mention "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship" at all!

What a pantload.

Says "Jeff the might and powerful!" Bullsh*t! Washington also cites Vattel, and points out that alien residents exist as an inferior form of citizenry.

So wait. Now you're telling me that alien residents are a kind of citizen? Doesn't this screw with your silly theory just a tiny little bit?

You seem to be completely unaware that "citizenship" is exclusively a matter of International law, not domestic law. It is only by the fact of other nations existence that there is even the concept of "citizenship."

Really? So the United States does and should bow to international law to define for us who our citizens are and are not?

Really?

Personally, I believe that WE define who our citizens are.

But hey, sounds like you'd rather hand it over to the UN. At least, that's what what you just said implies.

Yeah, that same English law which said we didn't have a right to secede from England because we owe perpetual allegiance to the Crown.

Wow. So because English law said we had no right to secede, that means we threw away every other precedent of law that we had had for centuries.

No it didn't. Madison's entire argument was based on being a member of a community, not on the fact that he was simply born there. You misconstrue what Madison meant when he used the word "Place." You do the same thing to Madison that you do to Bingham. Ignore the larger argument and take out the sound bites that you prefer.

No, I haven't done that to either. In fact, it was the larger argument that caused me to understand that Bingham WASN'T saying what you claimed.

I in fact started out thinking that Bingham actually implied the same thing you claim. It was only by really reading that I found out that particular claim, like virtually every other claim you've made, is complete BS.

Okay you littel turd burger.

Is that part of your official argument?

[DiogenesLamp]

DL is not funny

You just don't get the joke. You are too busy BEING the joke.

[DiogenesLamp]

YOU ARE NEARLY ALONE with your crackpot theories.

Were it a crackpot theory, I would expect you to be wearing a skirt and waving pompoms while shouting give me a "C"...

H*ll, you probably do that anyway.

[Jeff Winston]

You keep citing Rawle, over and over again, and also you attempt to Push St. George Tucker into your camp, but I recall seeing quotes from him which dispel him as a source for you're argument. You are pretty much stuck with a single British Loyalist, British Trained Lawyer with an English perspective on subject law.

I guess.

More than 30 Sources for the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America

"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).

This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:

February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances. French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):

“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”

This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.

James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

The First Congress (1790):

"And 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.".

Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.

French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):

“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)

By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.

Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.

Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):

"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."

Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.

Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.

French translation, (translated, 1799):

“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”

Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):

“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”

And again.

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):

“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”

From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.

French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.

French books on the Constitution:

“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)

Born citizen, born a citizen.

“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)

Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.

By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.

Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.

American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

Again: The rule was by the common law.

Another French translation, 1837:

“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”

Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):

“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.

From Spanish-language books on the Constitution:

“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)

Born a citizen.

“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)

Born in the United States. No mention of parents.

Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):

“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)

"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."

Native citizen.

Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):

“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.

Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:

"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."

In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."

[DiogenesLamp]

It was a joke. Must have went over your head.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah, your boy needs a pep talk. He’s not lookin so good after his thrashing. Glad he’s on your side though.

[Jeff Winston]

It was a joke. Must have went over your head.

Just tryin' to be helpful. :-)

[uncommonsense]

Your statements on "natural born citizen" seem to at least agree with the article from Wikipedia

It also seems that there are two major opinions on the topic characterized by the following quotes:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen[18]

-- or --

"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Ind.App., Nov 12, 2009) 916 N.E.2d 678 at 688[54]

It seems the preponderance of court rulings favor the latter interpretation. But, I can see the wisdom of avoiding dual allegiances specifically for POTUS.

[Jeff Winston]

It seems the preponderance of court rulings favor the latter interpretation. But, I can see the wisdom of avoiding dual allegiances specifically for POTUS.

Oh, I can see the argument in favor of it. However, James Madison also said that he was averse to putting citizenship requirements for leadership in the Constitution that added a "tincture of illiberality" to the document. He said he wasn't opposed to having citizenship requirements for Senator and Representative, but thought the Constitution was the wrong place for them; that they should be passed in the form of a law instead.

My whole deal is this: It's one thing to say this is a good idea, and we ought to do it. I probably wouldn't spend much time in such a discussion, because it doesn't make that much difference to me.

But it's another thing entirely to claim that this is the way the Founding Fathers set up the Constitution, and that's what it means, when that clearly is not the case.

Or, to put it a different way: If you don't like the Constitution, amend it. That's been done 27 times already.

Don't misrepresent it and claim it says something it doesn't.

[Jeff Winston]

By the way: To give you an idea of how concerned the Founding Fathers really were about "foreign influence" and "dual allegiances" - three of our first four Presidents held dual citizenship with France while serving as President.

I've commented on this more elsewhere.

The main concern was with royalty from Europe swooping in and taking or. Or actually being invited, by some here, to come and take over (e.g., Prince Henry of Prussia, or the one Bishop in England who I think was one of the King's sons.

Whatever friendliness toward another country that the US-born child of non-citizen parents might have had towards the country of his parents' birth, the Founding Fathers don't seem to have ever felt that it was worth getting worked up about.