Ah, yes. Except tht doesn’t explain the Supreme Court decision in 1898, which explored the meaning of NBC (from an original intent point of view) and concluded that everyone born in America, whose parents were not ambassadors or an invading army, was born a citizen - and that was the meaning of NBC.
I realize birthers disagree with that statement. However, every court, every state & every Congressman agrees.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
The Supreme Court didn’t distinguish between the meaning of NBC & the 14th. Instead, it said they meant the same thing - that with a few exceptions, anyone born in the USA was born a citizen. And if you are born a citizen - thus a natural born citizen - you can run for President. The dissent made note of that meaning:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that 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, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
There is a reason the Supreme Court has rejected case after case, and why no court has demanded Obama’s removal - and it isn’t black helicopters, or midnight visits from special agents. It is because that is the settled opinion of the Supreme Court on what NBC meant to the Founders and ratifiers, in a decision that has gone unchallenged since 1898.
However, if you want to read a reasonable objection to what the Court decided, go to the link below and read the dissent.
From the dissent’s introduction:
“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule
was in force in all [p706] the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;
and
that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”
Dissent
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
I think this is the meat of the dissent:
“The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.
The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents’ merely being domiciled in the country, and it is single and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.”
Opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html