Has the Natural Born Citizen or the Anchor Baby issue ever been decided in the Supreme Court?
In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court’s opinion, natural born citizens are “distinguished from” aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen) at birth [05].
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court, reversing prior precedent, ruled that, under some circumstances, children born in the United States, of non-U.S.-citizen parents, acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. But, to this day, the Supreme Court has never ruled that such children are natural born citizens. On the contrary, our nation’s highest court has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.
Native born would be an anchor baby, as was decided the Wong von Ark case that South Dakota references
Natural Born requires both parents to be citizens.
To my knowledge SCOTUS has never ruled on this as being a requirement for the Presidency. I am not familiar with the Minor vs. Hapersett case, but it would appear that it was unrelated to Presidential qualifications.
It is known that three Founding Fathers had that book (Jefferson, Franklin for sure and Madison or Hamilton I believe was the other). The book was written in French, not yet translated and all the men were fluent in French.
Under the Vattel definition the following people are/were not eligible: Obama, Haley, Cruz. Ramaswamy and Harris are a question mark as I do not know when their parents became citizens.
If SCOTUS ever rules on this, I believe they would rule that we have now accepted, by by common usage that there is no difference in the two terms. I would vociferously disagree with that decision.
Yes...At least once in recent years...John McCain