The right to define classes of citizenship has nothing to do with the intent of the Framers in choosing the eligibility language in Article II. You persist in missing the point. Further, you refuse to address the concern of the time that led to the 1790 Act being changed. In fact the issue of dual allegiances as there was concern about it at the time, as Framers expressed, was, in part, because of their observations of such problems being caused by dynastic marriages between European nations, which had been going on for centuries leading up to the time of our Revolution. The House of Hanover is but one example. George III was, of course, a Hanoverian monarch.
The right to define classes of citizenship has nothing to do with the intent of the Framers in choosing the eligibility language in Article II. You persist in missing the point. Further, you refuse to address the concern of the time that led to the 1790 Act being changed. In fact the issue of dual allegiances as there was concern about it at the time, as Framers expressed, was, in part, because of their observations of such problems being caused by dynastic marriages between European nations, which had been going on for centuries leading up to the time of our Revolution. The House of Hanover is but one example. George III was, of course, a Hanoverian monarch.
I’ll try once again. First, I will respond to your points:
I cede your point, the choice of words for Article II, Section I, Clause had nothing to do with defining classes of citizenship.
The First Congress enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Second Congress revised it.
Yes, the Framers were concerned about royal marriages resulting in new national boundaries, and George I, II, and III were as German as one can get.
My points and my position on Presidential eligibility is:
The Constitution did not define the meaning of the words “Natural Born Citizen” within Article II or elsewhere in the Constitution.
Article I, section 8 granted plenary power to the Congress to establish rule of a uniform system of naturalization.
The Congress exercised this power in 1790 and on many occasions since enacting laws governing the naturalization of citizens. They have also included definitions of citizens at birth. They believed that they had the power to do so and, as far as I know, they have never been challenged on that point. The current list of definitions can be found at USC 8, Section 1401.
Here are the arguments:
The definition of “Natural Born Citizens” can be found in the writings of the Founders, in Vattel, Blackstones, or in English Common Law or buried at Goat Island with Blackbeards Treasure. Everyone can choose their favorite.
Acknowledging the inconvenient language in Section 1401 defining Citizen by Birth, the explanation is that Citizen by Birth is not Natural Born Citizen, but is a form of Naturalization. I don’t think that this is correct.
I believe that the definitions contained in Section 1401 are the elusive Natural Born Citizen definition language and have been codifed by Congress within their plenary power laid out in Article I, Section 8. I also believe that this is what the framers of the Constitution intended.
Since, I don’t think that the Courts are ever going to agree to argue the meaning of Natural Born Citizen for a number of reasons, the only route for a resolution is appeals of the decision by Judge Pellegrini. He ruled that the term “Natural Born Citizen” is the same as the term “Citizen by Birth”. On appeal, the validity of USC 8 Section 1401 can be challenged. If that prevails, then the Congress never had the power to define NBC. If it fails, then Congress does have the power and USC 8 Section 1401 applies for both NBC and eligibility of Presidents. I’m predicting the latter.
BTW, the reason that I think that Minor v. Happersett is ludicrous is because it’s a case of women’s suffrage that decided that women had no right to vote, and because this paragraph:
“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “
This paragraph comes in the rationale, not in the judgment, but it points out that they only considered it in a cursory manner, examining only the circumstance applying to Minor while determining the facts. This case has nothing else to do with Natural Born Citizens or on Presidential eligibility. Case after case in the birther repertoire have similar flaws.