You are very welcome.
The first thing that got my attention was the expression that the Founders had a very serious concern about foreign influence or ’evils’ as noted.
They did. But every historical source I have ever seen attributes this to the kind of political maneuvering and scheming in Europe that allowed someone like an established nobleman in one country to go over to another country and gain influence and power. I have yet to see any indication that they were at all concerned that a child who was born here of immigrant parents and who most likely grew up in some place like Philadelphia or Charleston might exercise any kind of significant "foreign influence."
By all accounts, such a person was not a foreigner at all. He was a native son of the United States, a country that had people of English, German, Irish, Scottish, Dutch, French, and Swedish descent. Among a few others.
Nor do they seem to have been at all concerned even about a child of American parents who might have simply grown up in Paris and moved to the US at age 21. If you ask me, that probably gave more possibility of "foreign influence." But they promptly declared such people should be considered as natural born citizens.
What they were concerned about was some royal dude from England or somewhere coming over here with a lot of flashy titles and high-class garb and a big retinue, and buying his way into power.
At the time the Constitution was established, there was talk of getting a European prince to come over here and set up a new monarchy. THAT'S largely the kind of stuff they wanted to guard against.
That, and putting the army into the hands of someone who might have more loyalty to folks back home in England, who we might yet end up fighting again (as we did, just 25 years later).
This discussion leads me to take that according to Bayard McCain was eligible for POTUSA without any resolution by/from the Senate.
I agree.
The resolution was just a smokescreen for Obama’s eligibility.
I see this differently.
That I attribute to the current formal status of the law, and to the current state of legal scholarship on the issue.
Legally, there is really no doubt about the natural born citizenship of someone born on US soil, even to non-citizen parents. Like Obama. The Supreme Court settled that back in 1898, in the Wong case. That Obama is a natural born citizen was only strengthened by his having an American mother.
But legally, the case of a Ted Cruz has never been formally ruled on by the Supreme Court. So in the legal sense, there is at least SOME consideration that it's possible they might rule otherwise.
In terms of the opinion of scholarship, when Romney's dad, George Romney, born in Mexico, ran for President, there were those who wrote articles questioning his eligibility. This is within memory.
So as far as our Congressmen were concerned, there was enough doubt in the minds of the public and of at least a few scholars about McCain to pass a resolution saying Congress believed he was eligible. There was not enough actual doubt about Obama to pass a similar resolution.
I believe that the recent situations with Snowden and the soldier would seem to negate any thoughts that children or young adults cannot/will not turn on the USA.I wouldn’t trust ex President of Egypt Morsi’s two sons who were born in the USA as Muslims to be POTUSA. Some would make such possible only because of being born in the USA. I believe the Founders were aware of the possibility and dangers of family and other influences. Of course they did not account for 2plus generation actions
Yeah, what was that holding again?
"Children born in the United States generally acquire United States citizenship at birth via the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
And of course we have Justice Waite specifically asserting that the 14th amendment does not define "natural born citizen." (of course not, it didn't exist in 1787.)
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Once again, you people rely on the weakest possible standard of "citizen", and then you deliberately conflate "citizen" with "natural citizen".
Drink your Anchor Baby soup Jeff.
Jeff says: “There was not enough actual doubt about Obama to pass a similar resolution.”
However in 2009 the House of Representatives did include a “whereas” clause in a resolution that acknowledged Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The resolution passed 378-0.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hres593/text