It has generally been conceded (except by me) that Magic was born of an American mother in Hawaii. If true, that would make the man a NATIVE American Citizen. If so, that citizenship cannot be removed.
Upon reaching his majority, the fellow had the choice of American, Indonesian, British, or Kenyan citizenship. Apparently he chose "American."
The fact that he had this choice (probably still does) is enough to convince me that he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, as required by Article II of The Constitution.
The fact that elected Republicans, and so many FReepers, are not getting, or pretending not to get, the difference between NATIVE and NATURAL born citizenship, is disheartening to say the very least.
To further adumbrate: It was traditionally held that a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" is a person born to TWO (2) American Citizens within American jurisdiction. The parents themselves can either be naturalized, or Natural Born. Someday, some court or other might get off its black-robed duff long enough to answer the questions put to it on behalf of the 50 Million or so American voters who can still read the Constitution and hold that traditional view.
Numbers of Freepers have come up with enough stuff to suggest the issue has never been settled. The fact the FOUNDERS exempted those who'd been simply living in America, whether they were born here or not, suggests their concern was with where the hopeful office holder was born (or the jurisdiction thereof).
Then, it turned out America was a lot more difficult to get populated and developed than the Founders had imagined. If it hadn't have been for the Great Famines of the 1800s we'd probably still be pushing in the lower tens of millions rather than up there over 300 million people.
Great post, as always. You do a singular job of laying out the issues, and you have a gift for cutting through the noise and getting to the heart of the matter.
One thing I wanted to mention. Don’t assume that everyone who doesn’t grasp the difference between native and natural born is a conservative. I recently had a very eye-opening experience. I took an intensive tour of four of the most radically—and rabidly—Obot/anti-birther/Soros funded/moonbat sites on the web. I discovered FR anti-birthers posting on these sites [as members of good standing], furthering the anti-birther cause. I came upon numerous mentions of FR anti-birthers as cause celebres, acknowledged, lauded and cheered on by the leftists. I came upon mentions of leftists who had stealth FR accounts, and who further the anti-birther memes on eligibility threads. They then report back to their lefty brethren how insane and stupid FR so-called ‘birthers’ are.
So don’t assume everyone who claims an inability to distinguish between native and natural born is trying all that hard. They may be here just to defend Obama. Fwiw.
Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson, both considered as possible SCOTUS justices, wrote the following re McCain's eligibility to be President for the Senate. In it they opine that natural born can be the product of either jus sanguinis or jus solis.
"The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
and
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
and
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier."
Now you may discount or disagree with their opinion, but for you to state without reservation that this is settled law is just plain wrong. Eventually, this will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.