"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President."
[Article II; Section I]
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Now.....how many types of citizens are mentioned in this paragraph? Three? Four? No! Only two! Would that imply to you that there is a difference between these two?
If you answered yes.....what do you suppose that difference would be and why do you think this phrase was "grandfathered"?
Now......where does this paragraph speak of Naturalized citizens....the third type? It doesn't.
Justice Douglas is stating very succinctly that Native born and Naturalized citizens are very similar. But....only Natural Born Citizens are qualified to be the "Commander in Chief". If you believe he was equating "Native" born with "Natural" born.....then why does he use two different adjectives?
Now.....according to [Article II; Section I] do Citizens of this country cease to exist after a certain period of time? Of course they don't. They just no longer are qualified to be the "Commander in Chief" (if they were not yet born at the time of the signing of the Constitution)! After all the potential Presidential aspirants had died off after the Constitution was ratified....then normal citizens (which they had been) were no longer allowed to be "Commander in Chief".
They had not been born to U.S. Citizen parents....so they were not called "Natural Born"....only "Citizens" (Native Born) and that how Article II; Section I] defines them......Citizens! But until they had all died off the grandfather clause still allowed them to seek the Presidency.
Thus...............Justice Douglas in his opinion has identified all three types of Citizens and very pointedly has indicated......only "Natural Born Citizens" were qualified to be President.
But does “natural born” mean “native born” or “naturalized” - meaning the Justice himself wrote this very sloppily.....not something to hang a 200 year hat on.....
More words doesn’t make your attempt at parsing any more convincing. There are only two categories of American citizenship: born citizens and naturalized citizens.
The first President who qualified as a natural born citizen was Martin Van Buren, elected in 1837. All previous presidents were elected under the provision of being “citizens at the time of the adoption of this constitution.”
The requirements for born citizenship that are applicable to Obama and Senator Cruz fall under 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
“For Obama, the applicable section of the law is:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”
For Senator Cruz the applicable section of the law is:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...”
I’m open to having my mind changed on this subject however. If you can find any judge in America who believes that native born and natural born are not synonymous, I’d love to read their opinion.
A bit more Supreme Court back up for my position.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884):
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
“This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Minor v. Happersett (1874): “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”