By The Right Scoop


Byron York says that you should never fear, that indeed Ted Cruz is a US Citizen by birth and therefore eligible to be president if he so chooses to run:

WASHINGTON EXAMINER – In the past few days, there has been renewed buzz on the Internet about the presidential eligibility of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz has only been in the Senate for about 60 days and does not appear to be behind any of the talk. But he has certainly been in the news in recent days, and in response to a request for comment, his spokesman, Sean Rushton, sent me this note:

Sen. Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth, having been born in Calgary to an American-born mother. He is focused entirely on his new role in the Senate, and on working every day to represent Texas and defend conservative principles in the Senate.

Any talk about Cruz follows years of discussion about birthplace and presidential eligibility involving President Obama, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Marco Rubio. The bottom line in the case of Cruz, who was born in Canada in 1970, is that his father was an immigrant from Cuba and not a U.S. citizen at the time of young Cruz’s birth, but his mother was born and raised in the United States. The law in effect then, and now, made Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at birth. Although the drafters of the Constitution did not define what they meant when they required an American president to be a “natural born citizen,” it is generally thought that “citizen by birth” is the best modern-day equivalent. On that basis, Cruz appears entirely eligible — if he ever chooses to pursue the White House.

As a bonus, here’s an interview with Ted Cruz from today:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Sandra123456

    After Obama has been allowed to be president what does it matter? Anyone can be president from anywhere.

    • Amjean

      The reality is that would only happen if they are a leftie! LOL

      • keninil

        Watch the “natural born citizen” argument pop up on the left if Cruz tries to run.

        • warpmine

          What I’d like to see is Cruz disqualify himself based on Vattel’s Laws of Nations(get the title right?) that natural born is tow citizen parents at the time of birth. That tight there folks would drive the left bonkers.

          • keninil

            – a nice thought, but I think Cruz wants to be pres, and will slip by anyway he can.

            • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

              Just like Rubio.

          • smrstrauss

            The term Natural Born Citizen does not come from Vattel. Vattel’s French word “indigens” was not even translated as Natural Born Citizen until TEN years after the US Constitution was written. It comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

            Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            • warpmine

              I forgot that the Founder’s were just a collection of buffoons that spoke nothing other than English. Silly me. Was Ed Meese alive during the time of the Revolution? If he was(doubtful), did he have a hand at writing the Constitution?Again, doubtful.

              So, to whom will I believe? It’s not physics nor mathematics, therefore I will go along with what I and others have been expressing for two centuries, natural born is described as born of two citizen parents. De Vattel did have an influence upon those that wrote the Constitution, just ask Madison…..oh, wait, never mind.

              BTW, English law says that the child becomes the citizen of the father’s home country, so we have to conclude Cruz nor Obamakovsky is eligible for POTUS.

              Note: Not trying to be obnoxious about this but I…I believes I is right.

              Next up, the 2nd. Are you going to tell me the militia isn’t the populous or is it the National guard? I’m no scholar but then, I’m no writer either, but I can read despite my hint of blindness.

              Chapter 19: (Snip) The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

              Notice the word parents is plural meaning two(obviously, he was ignorant of the future slippery slope whereas the “Left” will deem anyone that contributes to the birth of a human baby, a parent.)

              • smrstrauss

                Some of them could speak French of course. HOWEVER, if they had translated Vattel’s word “indignes” as “Natural Born Citizen” and used that translation and not the far more common use of Natural Born from the common law, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO.

                But they didn’t say so, and all of their writings and other writings of Americans at the time use the term Natural Born just the way that it was used in the common law, not the way that it was used in Vattel.

              • smrstrauss

                Re: “BTW, English law says that the child becomes the citizen of the father’s home country, so we have to conclude Cruz nor Obamakovsky is eligible for POTUS.’

                NO,. English law says that someone is a Natural Born Citizen of the country in which they are born. Neither the citizenship of the father or of the mother can change that.

                • warpmine

                  That’s not what I read.

                  De Vattel was Swiss philosopher and I thought their native language was German or was it Aramaic just can’t recall.

                • smrstrauss

                  You could google him. The language was French.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

                  Yes, that is what Vattel said, but Vattel recommended many things that we did not adopt in the US Constitution, such as a state religion. There is no evidence that we used his definition of Natural Born Citizen, which would have had to have been translated by the writers of the US Constitution, and if they had done so and not used the far more common term Natural Born from the common law, the would surely have said so, and they didn’t.

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  English common law is mentioned nowhere in our Consittution. However, Vattel’s Law of Nations IS. So which do you think influenced the founders?

                • smrstrauss

                  NO, neither Vattel or his book THE Law of Nations, is mentioned in the US Constitution (or for that matter in the Federalist Papers). The words the (not capitalized) and Law of Nations does appear in the maritime section, but that referred to the generic law of nations (capitalization was for stress in those days). And there are certainly provisions of the common law that are mentioned in the US Constitution, such as Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto. And John Jay actually wrote the common law into the first Constitution of the State of New York, the 1777 Constitution of New York. And the common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise. So, the common law, not Vattel.

          • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

            In the interest of accuracy… One must be born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. That was the definition that was held to be the legal one by SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett.

            See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

            And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president//

            • warpmine

              By all accounts, you’re correct but in the case, we were discussing one part of it or at least I was. I don’t expect a “sorry, I was incorrect” so there it is. Would rather a current understanding but again…..

            • smrstrauss

              In the interest of accuracy, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

              “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1991)

              “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed., 2009)

              “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

        • smrstrauss

          Not likely. He MAY not be a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in Canada, but on the other hand he may be a Natural Born Citizen because his mother was a US citizen. So, there is some doubt. But there is no doubt whatever with regard to Jinal and Rubio. They were born on US soil (as was Obama, in Hawaii as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii shows) and hence they are Natural Born Citizens. The term Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

        • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

          It has ALREADY popped up and will continue to do so until he publicly acknowledges that he is not eligible. One MUST be born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. That was the definition that was held to be the legal one by SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett.

          See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

          And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

          • smrstrauss

            The Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and it ruled that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, and so far ten appeals courts have all cited the Wong Kim Ark case in rulings on eligibility and none has cited Minor v. Happersett. On October 1, the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those cases, the Farrar case in Georgia, which had ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. And, by turning down the appeal, the US Supreme Court left the ruling of the lower court and the other nine appeals courts standing.

            • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

              Wong Kim Ark only ruled on who can be a citizen. Nothing about Natural Born Citizen. This is a common lib deflection.

    • Sober_Thinking

      I was thinking the same thing.

    • stage9

      I know you’re being fececious, but the Constitution matters, and we should never compromise that on the altar of expediency. We keep the law. Liberals defy the law.

    • sDee

      American students have long been taught now to be global citizens.

      We are giving away our sovereignty and Constitution. Those who defend Cruz’s eligibility under this twisted globalist logic are either uneducated or complicit in it.

      Period.

      • LibLoather

        Speaking of educating ones self, please re-read this article and read Article II, section I of the Constitution. No one is giving anything away. Cruz is eligible under the Const. guidelines.

        • ArlenWilliams

          “Natural” was added to the term for a reason. It means by virtue of your inheritance. The whole goal of that clause was to prevent competing allegiances. Inheritance comes chiefly from the father. The international law to which the framers mutually referred (Vattel) made it clear. There was no such things as dual citizenship, which is clearly a competing allegiance.

          Either be a conservative or don’t. Either believe in original meaning and intent or don’t.

          • Betsey_Ross

            Nowhere in the above story does it say that Ted Cruz is a Natural Born citizen. Sorry Byron, Ted Cruz doesn’t meet the requirements. You must be born in this country to TWO parents that are citizens. Trying to make Cruz fit into Obama’s template that none of us think is valid doesn’t help the situation. Bringing the Hanovers from Germany didn’t help England at all. It created more problems that it was worth. Obama has created more problems than he is worth. The Constitution is the law of the land, but everyone seems to be a Constitutional scholar. Even the President pretends to be one.

            The Constitution is the only way out of this mess. Tilting at windmills isn’t going to cut it nor will wishful thinking. Follow the Constitution. It’s the only way.

            • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

              No, that’s not it. Here is the pertinent quote from Art II of the US Constitution:

              “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.”

              When you read it, it’s easy to see that “natural born Citizen” simply means a US Citizen by birth. They gave an exception to those who were citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. What they excluded is someone who is a naturalized citizen. Cruz was born as an American citizen. He did not have to become a citizen (naturalized.) As long as Ted Cruz is considered an American citizen by birth, he is eligible.

              • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                You are making a common error about the definition of a naturalized citizen.
                I keep reading arguments that there are only 2 classes of citizen, natural born and naturalized. I always disagreed until it was made clear to me where the arguer’s error lies.

                Really it’s far more simple ….
                1. you can be a naturalized by statute citizen
                2. or a natural born citizen (no statute needed)

                1. Naturalized = born incountry subject to jurisdiction (native born)
                OR 1 US Citizen parent/born incountry (native born)
                OR 2 US Citizen parents/born abroad
                OR zero US Citizen parents/born abroad takes oath

                2. Natural born citizen = the only thing left over…
                born incountry of citizen parents (2)

                The problem comes when the person takes it to mean that the two classes are: 1) a non-citizen who naturalizes and takes oath to become a citizen, and 2) anything else

              • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

                Sorry, you are wrong. Diane is correct. Neither Obama, McCain, Rubio, Cruz, or Jindal are natural born citizens.

                From http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/obama-natural-born-citizen-leo-donofrio-explains-donofrio-lawsuit-us-supreme-court-appeal-obama-not-eligible-obamas-father-kenyan-donofrio-interprets-constitution/ :

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

                The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

                Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

                The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

                The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

                But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

                The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            • smrstrauss

              Jindal and Rubio had NO US citizen parents when they were born, but since they were born on US soil (as btw was Obama, in Hawaii), they are Natural Born US Citizens. The term Natural Born citizen refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH.

              Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

              Here are sources to turn to for further research:

              http://www.economist.com/blogs

              http://www.fredthompsonsameric

              http://online.wsj.com/article/

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

              http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

              http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

              http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

              http://www.obamabirthbook.com/

              • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                Here are some court cases that disagree with you. Note particularly Wong Kim Ark, the case the obots love to cite incorrectly.

                In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court considered the status of children who are born in the United States, of fathers who owe allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States. In both cases, the Court ruled that such children are not even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.

                In 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……which the term parents is always used, plural btw.

                •In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel’s concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable, the viewpoint that: “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”.
                •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 or born from a foreigner.

                •In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. At the time of his birth, his father was a native-born American citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.

                •In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States. When she was born, her father was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage….When deciding her citizenship in was determined by her parents status as citizens as well that she was born on US soil.
                To this day, whenever a Supreme Court decision has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

                The United States has had 44 presidents (including Barack Obama). Of these 44 presidents, 34 were born after 1787 (the year the Constitution was adopted) and were therefore subject to the “natural born citizen” requirement. With only two exceptions, each of these 34 presidents was born in the United States, of parents who were both U.S. citizens (Citizenship Status of U.S. Presidents). The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. While running for office in 1880, Chester Arthur lied to journalists about his family history (and later burned nearly all of his family records), thereby concealing the fact that he was a British subject at birth (Historical Breakthrough – Chester Arthur).

              • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

                Re “Jindal and Rubio had NO US citizen parents when they were born, but since they were born on US soil (as btw was Obama, in Hawaii), they are Natural Born US Citizens. The term Natural Born citizen refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH.

                Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

                Here are sources to turn to for further research:”

                Not a single one of your sources supersedes the highest court in the USA, the U.S Supreme Court; which, in Minor v Happersett held that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                See See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

                And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

                A ‘holding’ by SCOTUS is legally binding. Thus, when SCOTUS ‘held’ the above to be the term’s definition, that definition became the legal one. Minor was decided in 1875 therefore, any definition that happened to appear in some later dictionary (Black’s or ANY other) is meaningless; because, no mere dictionary supersedes a SCOTUS holding.

                Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor, SCOTUS used that same definition in deciding cases. SCOTUS has never used a different definition OTHER that that one in deciding cases.

                See http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966220/4-Supreme-Court-Cases-Define-Natural-Born-Citizen

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “which, in Minor v Happersett held that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                  But Minor v. Happersett DID NOT hold that at all. If a court ruled that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up, is that a ruling that you HAVE to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up???

                  Well, look closely, that is all that Minor v. Happersett says. It simply says that if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, you certainly are without any doubt a Natural Born Citizen. But it does not say that you have to have both of the two possible ways. It never says any such thing.

                  The Economist has a slightly different explanation:

                  “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.’

                  Both the Economist and I agree that the Minor v. Happersett case did not settle the matter, as do the 10 appeals court cases, all of which say that the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor v. Happersert in any case, did settle the matter, and that the Wong Kim Ark case said that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

                  Re: “Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor…’

                  Answer: That is another birther myth. No case except for the Wong Kim Ark case ever defined Natural Born Citizen. And, you know, the Wong Kim Ark ruling was right, the historic research of the way that Americans used the term Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written shows that Americans used the term the way that it was used in the common law and did not use it to refer to parents.

          • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

            No, “natural” was added to differ between being born a US citizen vs. being naturalized. Senators and Representatives only have to be US citizens–they can be naturalized. The president must be born a US citizen. Period. If Cruz was considered a US citizen at birth, then he is eligible.

            Some of you out there are putting words in the constitution that are not there. I urge you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

            Also read about President Chester A Arthur on the same page.

            • ArlenWilliams

              That goes into the “nice try” file. ;-`

              If there is anything to know about the framers, it is that they used words for reasons.

              • warpmine

                …….and they regarded Vattel’s thoughts on the matter of who is to be considered natural born.

                • smrstrauss

                  No. Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law. Vattel’s French word “indignes” was not even translated into English as “Natural Born Citizen” (or for that matter translated at all, the first English edition left it as Indignes) until TEN years after the Constitution was written.

                  Some of the members of the Constitutional Convention could speak French, of course. HOWEVER, if they had translated Vattel’s word “indignes” as “Natural Born Citizen” and used that translation and not the far more common use of Natural Born from the common law, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO.

                  But they didn’t say so, and all of their writings and other writings of Americans at the time use the term Natural Born just the way that it was used in the common law, not the way that it was used in Vattel.

              • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

                And you go into the “not even trying” file, because you obviously didn’t read it.

                Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born.

                Under your definition, President Arthur was not eligible to be president.

                • smrstrauss

                  I agree that Arthur, and Buchanan, whose father also was not naturalized, and James C. Fremont, the first Republican presidential candidate, whose father was French and not naturalized, were all Natural Born Citizens and eligible. Birthers hold that Arthur hid the fact that his father was not naturalized. But in fact there is no evidence that Arthur hid the fact, and so far as we know hundreds if not thousands of people knew that Arthur’s father was not naturalized, and the same for Buchanan and Fremont.

                  Birthers also hold that Andrew Jackson, who had two foreign parents, neither of whom was naturalized, was only eligible because of the grandfather clause. But he was eligible under the common law meaning of Natural Born, since he was born in the USA. So, under their theory, one of the most fiercely loyal American leaders was only eligible due to a special exception and would not be eligible if he ran today. Under the common law, of course he would be—and that is a good thing.

            • smrstrauss

              The historical evidence of the use of the term Natural Born Citizen by AMERICAN (not Swiss) writers at the time was that they used it just the same way that it was used in the common law, and never used it to refer to parents. Some examples;

              “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

              “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

              And that is why Black’s Law Dictionary, and Edwin Meese’s volume on the Constitution and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case and so far TEN appeals courts have ALL said that Natural Born citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.

            • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

              Re “No, “natural” was added [to the Constitution] to differ between being born a US citizen vs. being naturalized.”

              That is physically impossible. The Constitution was adopted March 4, 1789; and, there were no provisions written into it for anyone to become a citizen via naturalization. In other words, the Constitution itself did not provide for such; and, the first naturalization law ever passed by Congress was the Naturalization Act of 1790, a full 6 years AFTER the adoption of the Constitution. Therefore, it is impossible for the word “natural’ to have been used to differentiate “between being born a US citizen vs. being naturalized,” as you claim, at a time when there was no such thing as “being naturalized.”

              Re “Senators and Representatives only have to be US citizens–they can be naturalized. The president must be born a US citizen. Period. If Cruz was considered a US citizen at birth, then he is eligible. ”

              The Constitution clearly states that only a natural born citizen is eligible to become president. It ALSO clearly states that ALL other elective offices can be held by a citizen. That ALONE tells us that the framers of the Constitution clearly understood that there was a distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen.

              The highest court in the USA, the U.S. Supreme Court, held in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

              See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

              And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

              A ‘holding’ by SCOTUS is legally binding. Thus, when SCOTUS ‘held’ the above to be the term’s definition, that definition became the legal one. Minor was decided in 1875 therefore, any definition that happened to appear in some later dictionary (Black’s or ANY other) is meaningless; because, no mere dictionary supersedes a SCOTUS holding.

              Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor, SCOTUS used that same definition in deciding cases. SCOTUS has never used a different definition OTHER that that one in deciding cases.

              See http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966220/4-Supreme-Court-Cases-Define-Natural-Born-Citizen

              Additionally, current Immigration and naturalization Law recognizes that there is a clear distinction between the terms native born, naturalized, and natural born citizens.

              See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

              Re “Some of you out there are putting words in the constitution that are not there.”

              Yes, some of you certainly are, and you should stop doing that…

              Re “Also read about President Chester A Arthur on the same page”

              Here are all the pertinent facts regarding Chester Arthur.

              He was born October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur emigrated from Antrim, Ireland at age eighteen. Chester’s father, William, did not become a naturalized citizen until 14 years AFTER Chester’s birth; which, made Chester INeligible to be vice president or president. Chester’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Vermont. Chester was born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States.

              HOWEVER, that fact was NOT KNOWN at the time Chester was sworn in as vice president or president; BECAUSE, he lied numerous times about his past to obfuscate his ineligibility to hold those offices and burned all personal records upon his death. The truth was not found out unto 2008 when Leo Donofrio discovered it in 2008.

              Therefore, the Chester Arthur case is vastly different from that of Obama because Arthur’s suppuration was unknown at the time it occurred.

              See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

              • smrstrauss

                Before the Constitution was adopted, the states naturalized people, and it was their naturalized citizens and citizens who were naturalized under the US Constitution but born before the Constitution was written that the grandfather clause was written for. The grandfather clause allowed prominent naturalized Americans citizens like Alexander Hamilton to become president.

                Re: “HOWEVER, that fact was NOT KNOWN at the time Chester was sworn in as vice president or president; BECAUSE, he lied numerous times about his past to obfuscate his ineligibility to hold those offices….”

                That is what birthers say, but they have not shown any evidence of it at all, no evidence of lying. So, as far as we know thousands of people knew that Arthur (Chester was only his first name) had a father who was not naturalized. And the same goes for Buchanan, for whom there is absolutely no evidence that his father was naturalized, and James C. Fremont, the first Republican presidential candidate, whose father was French, and whose campaign biography indicates was not naturalized, and did not intend to be naturalized, and was planning to return to France when he died.

                Re: “The highest court in the USA, the U.S. Supreme Court, held in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                But Minor v. Happersett did not hold that at all. If a court ruled that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up, is that a ruling that you HAVE to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up???

                Well, look closely, that is all that Minor v. Happersett says. It simply says that if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, you certainly are without any doubt a Natural Born Citizen. But it does not say that you have to have both of the two possible ways. It never says any such thing. (And, besides, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and it ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.)

                • smrstrauss

                  Re the statement: “there were no provisions written into it for anyone to become a citizen via naturalization.”

                  Answer: The US Constitution gives the US Congress the power to establish “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” in clause 4 of section 8 of Article I.

          • smrstrauss

            The original meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to “inheritance.”

            Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

              Re Common Law:

              The Framers of the Constitution had just finished waging a bloody war specifically for the purpose of getting out from under Common Law! Do you seriously think they would deliberately place themselves BACK UNDER Common Law? That is an absurd notion on its face!

              But, regardless of your opinion on that matter, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

              See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

              And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

              A ‘holding’ by SCOTUS is legally binding. Thus, when SCOTUS ‘held’ the above to be the term’s definition, that definition became the legal one. Minor was decided in 1875 therefore, any definition that happened to appear in some later dictionary (Black’s or ANY other) is meaningless; because, no mere dictionary supersedes a SCOTUS holding.

              Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor, SCOTUS used that same definition in deciding cases. SCOTUS has never used a different definition OTHER that that one in deciding cases.

              See http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966220/4-Supreme-Court-Cases-Define-Natural-Born-Citizen

              Re “Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

              If that actually IS what Black’s says, what is described there is a native born citizen; and, the proof that there is a legal distinction between that type of citizenship and the status of being a NBC, can be found here:

              http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

              • smrstrauss

                Re: “the Framers of the Constitution had just finished waging a bloody war specifically for the purpose of getting out from under Common Law! Do you seriously think they would deliberately place themselves BACK UNDER Common Law? That is an absurd notion on its face!”

                The answer is a simple YES.

                Don’t believe it? Well John Jay wrote the first Constitution of the State of New York in 1777, right when the Revolution was going on, and it says that the common law of England and America as of the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) would remain the law of New York State unless and until a New York statute changed that law.

                In addition to that the common law is referred to in the Federalist Papers about twenty times, and always with praise.

                And then there are the common law terms, such as Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto, that are in the US Constitution.

                Re: “U.S. Supreme Court held in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                BUT Minor v. Happersett did not hold that at all. If a court ruled that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up, is that a ruling that you HAVE to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up???

                Well, look closely, that is all that Minor v. Happersett says. It simply says that if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, you certainly are without any doubt a Natural Born Citizen. But it does not say that you have to have both of the two possible ways. It never says any such thing.

                The Economist has a slightly different explanation:

                “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.’

                Both the Economist and I agree that the Minor v. Happersett case did not settle the matter, as do the 10 appeals court cases, all of which say that the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor v. Happersert in any case, did settle the matter, and that the Wong Kim Ark case said that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

                Re: “Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor…’

                Answer: That is another birther myth. No case except for the Wong Kim Ark case ever defined Natural Born Citizen. And, you know, the Wong Kim Ark ruling was right, the historic research of the way that Americans used the term Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written shows that Americans used the term the way that it was used in the common law and did not use it to refer to parents.

                Re: “what is described there is a native born citizen.”

                Answer: ALL Native Born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. (So, you may ask, why didn’t they use the term Native Born Citizen in the Constitution. Answer: Because (10 at the time the phrase Natural Born was far more popular than Native Born, I do not know why, but that is the case; and because (2) the term Natural Born is a legal term, and they were mainly lawyers and justices.

                Re your citations. I have already given mine. People who are interested in doing their own research can find them on this blog.

              • smrstrauss

                Re: “the Framers of the Constitution had just finished waging a bloody war specifically for the purpose of getting out from under Common Law! Do you seriously think they would deliberately place themselves BACK UNDER Common Law? That is an absurd notion on its face!”

                The answer is a simple YES.

                Don’t believe it? Well John Jay wrote the first Constitution of the State of New York in 1777, right when the Revolution was going on, and it says that the common law of England and America as of the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) would remain the law of New York State unless and until a New York statute changed that law.

                In addition to that the common law is referred to in the Federalist Papers about twenty times, and always with praise.

                And then there are the common law terms, such as Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto, that are in the US Constitution.

                Re: “U.S. Supreme Court held in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                BUT Minor v. Happersett did not hold that at all. If a court ruled that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up, is that a ruling that you HAVE to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up???

                Well, look closely, that is all that Minor v. Happersett says. It simply says that if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, you certainly are without any doubt a Natural Born Citizen. But it does not say that you have to have both of the two possible ways. It never says any such thing.

                The Economist has a slightly different explanation:

                “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.’

                Both the Economist and I agree that the Minor v. Happersett case did not settle the matter, as do the 10 appeals court cases, all of which say that the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor v. Happersert in any case, did settle the matter, and that the Wong Kim Ark case said that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

                Re: “Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor…’

                Answer: That is another birther myth. No case except for the Wong Kim Ark case ever defined Natural Born Citizen. And, you know, the Wong Kim Ark ruling was right, the historic research of the way that Americans used the term Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written shows that Americans used the term the way that it was used in the common law and did not use it to refer to parents.

                Re: “what is described there is a native born citizen.”

                Answer: ALL Native Born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. (So, you may ask, why didn’t they use the term Native Born Citizen in the Constitution. Answer: Because (10 at the time the phrase Natural Born was far more popular than Native Born, I do not know why, but that is the case; and because (2) the term Natural Born is a legal term, and they were mainly lawyers and justices.

                Re your citations. I have already given mine. People who are interested in doing their own research can find them on this blog.

        • Nukeman60

          Speaking of educating oneself, you seem to fail to understand the scope of this entire thread. The US Constitution (specifically Article II, section 1, clause 5) states that no one but a ‘natural born citizen’ shall be the President of the United States, but does not define the term. Therein lies the problem, and for which we need to search for original intent from the founding fathers.

          Byron York is not one of the founding fathers and to say that “it is generally thought” does not constitute a definition of “natural born citizen”. Perhaps, you need to re-read the link by Lee B. Dixon. It is an excellent explanation. I’ll re-post it here, in case you missed it:

          http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

          • smrstrauss
            • Nukeman60

              Before you keep repeating these links, truly try to read the links given to you. They may be helpful and save us a lot of time constantly repeating the responses, as it’s clear you don’t listen to others’ comments.

              That’s really all there is to say, as you have exhausted that one page of WikiPedia and then just constantly repeat it over and over and over again (using their statements, references, and links). It doesn’t make your argument sound, merely annoying.

              • smrstrauss

                What gives you the idea that I only use Wikipedia?

                In addition to the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, TEN appeals courts have all ruled on presidential eligibility (nine on Obama and one on McCain), and they ALL have said that the definition of Natural Born Citizen was made by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case and they ALL have said that that meaning includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.

                Here are some of the rulings:

                “Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

                Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

                Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

                Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”

                Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

                Notice the reference to Minor v. Happersett in the ruling just above. The Economist Magazine puts it this way:

                “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.”

                The Wall Street Journal puts it this way:

                “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

                In short the historical research of the use of the term at the time, the Tucker and Rawle quotations, and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and scholars and the appeals courts all agree that the meaning of Natural born citizen refers to the place of birth.

                • Nukeman60

                  Ok, we did this last week and I’m not going to do it again with you. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to even care what you put down. I refuted all that already.

                  You believe the Constitution was based on English Common Law and Blackstone’s commentary. I believe it was based on the founding fathers wanting to sever themselves from English Common Law and using Vattel’s Law of Nations. You believe it’s more important to listen to liberals, RINOs and those that believe the Constitution is a living document. I believe in original intent and the thoughts of the founding fathers. You gave your links and I gave mine.

                  We could go on for dozens of posts like we did the last time, but it is irrelevant and quite frankly, boring. You believe that Natural Born Citizen means “jus soli” and I believe that it means both “jus soli” and jus sanguinis”. Let’s end it at that, because your getting rather boorish constantly repeating the same things from that Wiki Page over and over again. Try it on someone who hasn’t heard you say it before, why don’t you?

                  And, btw, you still don’t get my point about Black’s Law Dictionary, do you? That’s sad, very sad.

                • smrstrauss

                  I believe that if the writers of the US Constitution had intended to change the parent requirements for Natural Born status for citizens from the Natural Born status for subjects under the common law THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.

                  And I believe that the historic research showing that Americans at the time used the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to the place of birth the way that it was used in the common law is conclusive. So, (1) they never told us that they were making a change in the meaning; (2) they used the term in the same old way as it was used in the common law, to refer to the place of bith. And (3) the US Supreme Court agrees that the term came from the common law and referred to the place of birth.

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  Oh ,my, where to start? Wong Kim Ark does not even address natural born citizen. It only addresses “citizen”. That is like saying because the court ruled that Spot is a dog it also ruled that he is a Collie.
                  You are using the Obama cases…really??? That alone, and your sources being the WSJ (heard of the “banksters” who support Obama and One World Order?) and The Economist Magazine (notoriously a lib propaganda tool) show where your “truth” lies. Simply quoting the “birther” bashing seals the deal.
                  I believe Nukemano60 has your number, and you just gave it to the rest of us, too.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “Wong Kim Ark does not even address natural born citizen. It only addresses “citizen”.

                  Answer: Have you even read the Wong Kim Ark decision? Apparently not. Here are its words:

                  “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

                  III. The same rule was in force in all 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.”

                  You can see clearly with your own eyes that Natural Born Citizen status was indeed addressed. It says that every child was a Natural-born SUBJECT, but that does not change the fact that it was talking about Natural Born Citizen because, duh, it says that the same rules applied in the 13 colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And, you can see clearly that it says that the term Natural Born comes from the common law, “the law of England for the last three centuries” (hence, it does not come from Vattel), and it says that Natural Born status comes from the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats.)

                  YOU may say that this does not define Natural Born Citizen status, but you are wrong because TEN appeals courts say that it does define Natural Born Citizen status and none, not one single appeals court, says that it comes from any other ruling or that any other definition of the term other than every child born in the USA is a Natural Born citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is the law. Here are some of the rulings:

                  Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

                  Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”

                  Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

                  So, you see that in addition to your own eyes, the courts have held that the Wong Kim Ark case did rule on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen and that it ruled that the meaning refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA is a NBC except for the children of foreign diplomats. And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those rulings, which had held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, which means that the Supreme Court allowed the decision of the lower court (and the other nine appeals courts) to stand.

                  Re: “You are using the Obama cases…really??? ”

                  Actually, I used the Wong Kim Ark case first, and then the nine Obama cases (and the one McCain case), and ten cases should be enough. Don’t think so? Well here are a few more:

                  Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

                  “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

                  Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

                  “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

                  Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

                  “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

                  So, that is 13 cases, plus the Wong Kim Ark case, plus the opinions of Black’s Law Dictionary and Meese and Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and the Economist and the Wall Street Journal and Wikipedia. Oh, and in addition there is the historic research of the writings of the time that showed that Americans at the time of the writing of the US Constitution used the term Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law, to refer to the place of birth, and did not use it the way it was used in Vattel or to refer to parents.

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  And here is the full rebuttal, by one of our two top Conslittutional lawyers alive today:
                  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

                • smrstrauss

                  Leo is a nice guy, but he is wrong. Meese and the Heritage Foundation are right:

                  “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

                  And the TEN appeals courts and the Congressional Research Service are right and Black’s Law Dictionary and hatch and graham and former senator Fred Thompson are right, and Leo is wrong.

                • smrstrauss

                  That is the theory of one lawyer. TEN appeals court rulings have now said that the Wong Kim Ark ruling really did rule that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, and on October 1, 2012 the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten rulings, meaning that it left the ruling of that court, and the other nine, standing.

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  Here’s the infamous passage:

                  The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

                  It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

                  Have another look:

                  “…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

                  Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

                  – he compares two children

                  – on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

                  – on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

                  Do you see the difference?

                  He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

                  He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

                  – The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

                  Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:

                  “…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

                  But that’s not what they said.

                  – By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

                  – But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.

                  – This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: ”
                  “…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

                  If you had to decide whether the above meant that a the person born in the country was NOT a Natural Born Citizen simply because the comparison is to a Natural Born child of a citizen, the answer is there is more evidence that the person is born in the country is LIKE the Natural born child of a citizen than that there is evidence that she or he is NOT like the natural born child of the citizen. It certainly does NOT say that a child born in the country is not a Natural Born Citizen. And it certainly does not say, and for that matter Minor v. Happersett did not say either, that two citizen parents (or even one) are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.

                  More importantly, the key section of the ruling is not the part that you quote, but this:

                  “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
                  III. The same rule was in force in all 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 quotation clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (“by the law of England for the last three centuries”), and it says that the same rule applied in England, and in the 13 colonies and in the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, and it says that EVERY child born in the USA is a NBC except for the children of foreign diplomats, and that is what ten appeals courts have all ruled (and not one court has held to the contrary or cited Minor v. Happersett as the key ruling on this subject) and on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten cases, leaving its ruling, and that of the other nine, standing.

            • Nukeman60

              Before you keep repeating these links, truly try to read the links given to you. They may be helpful and save us a lot of time constantly repeating the responses, as it’s clear you don’t listen to others’ comments.

              That’s really all there is to say, as you have exhausted that one page of WikiPedia and then just constantly repeat it over and over and over again (using their statements, references, and links). It doesn’t make your argument sound, merely annoying.

        • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

          No one can be eligible to become president unless they are a natural born citizen. In Minor v Happersett, the highest court in the USA, the U.S Supreme Court, held that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

          See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

          A ‘holding’ by SCOTUS is legally binding. Thus, when SCOTUS ‘held’ the above to be the term’s definition, that definition became the legal one. Minor was decided in 1875 therefore, any definition that happened to appear in some later dictionary (Black’s or ANY other) is meaningless; because, no mere dictionary supersedes a SCOTUS holding.

          Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor, SCOTUS used that same definition in deciding cases. SCOTUS has never used a different definition OTHER that that one in deciding cases.

          See http://www.scribd.com/doc/5296

          • smrstrauss

            HOWEVER, Minor v. Happersett did not hold that at all. If a court ruled that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up, is that a ruling that you HAVE to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up???

            Well, look closely, that is all that Minor v. Happersett says. It simply says that if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, you certainly are without any doubt a Natural Born Citizen. But it does not say that you have to have both of the two possible ways. It never says any such thing.

            The Economist has a slightly different explanation:

            “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.’

            Both the Economist and I agree that the Minor v. Happersett case did not settle the matter, as do the 10 appeals court cases, all of which say that the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor v. Happersert in any case, did settle the matter, and that the Wong Kim Ark case said that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

            Re: “Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor…”

            Answer: That is another birther myth. No case except for the Wong Kim Ark case ever defined Natural Born Citizen. And, you know, the Wong Kim Ark ruling was right, the historic research of the way that Americans used the term Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written shows that Americans used the term the way that it was used in the common law and did not use it to refer to parents.

    • nonviolentrevolutionary

      the rule of law must be restored…never concede an inch to the Lefties…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/ObamaRelease-YourRecords/100000555737985 ObamaRelease YourRecords

      Two wrongs don’t make a right…

      • WI4Walker

        We need to have SCOTUS deliver in clear language what is a Natural Born Citizen. I think the general understanding is both parents must be US Citizens at birth, which based on the above, would make Cruz ineligible. I’ve always felt, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not was irrelavent – it is his father’s lack of citizenship that is the issue to his legality.

        I also question Rubio’s and Jindahl’s Natural Born Status as well. My recollection is that neither is eligible for the presidency. I was hoping Jindahl would run in the last election for no other reason than to establish the definition – which would have made Obama ineligible at the same time.

        • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

          There are others who’s eligibility has been questioned.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

          One of the more recognizable names:

          Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada. This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur’s family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his presidency, publishing a book on the subject. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824, Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880 that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.

          • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

            Yes, Chester Arthur burned his papers and even though there was doubt as to his eligibility, it was not proven until decades later that he was never eligible. He was our first “obama”. Arthur and Obama are the only 2 Presidents who got away with it.

            • smrstrauss

              Actually, James Buchanan, who was born after the expiration of the grandfather clause, also did not have a US citizen father. There is absolutely no evidence that Buchanan’s father was ever naturalized. Moreover, the first presidential candidate of the REPUBLICAN party, who was James C. Fremont, had a French father, and his campaign biography makes no mention of his father ever being nationalized or that he wanted to, and in fact it says that Fremont’s father was intending to return to “his native land” when he died. Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that Chester Arthur hid the fact that his father was not nationalized. None at all.

              And, wait for it, neither Buchanan nor Arthur nor Obama did anything wrong. All of them, and Fremont, were all Natural Born Citizens because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

              Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

              Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, puts it this way:

              Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

              The Wall Street Journal says:

              “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

              • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                RE: James C. Fremont, had a French father, and his campaign biography makes no mention of his father ever being nationalized or that he wanted to, and in fact it says that Fremont’s father was intending to return to “his native land” when he died.

                Because the bio does not mention something means that what you want it to mean is the truth? It could just as easily be the opposite. Also, have you never heard of someone who has become a US citizen wanting to be buried with his ancestors “in his native land”? You are reaching on this one. You have given no proof Fremont did not have a citizen father.

                Birther bashing is becoming quite the sport these days. You might call it “truth bashing”.

                • smrstrauss

                  Fremont’s campaign biography says that Fremont’s father was intending to return to “his native country” when he died, and he died in America. So the biography, which would have hidden the fact that Fremont’s father was not naturalized if it had wanted to, stated that Fremont’s father was intending to return to his native France. And, in addition to Fremont, there is no evidence that James Buchanan’s nationalized, and Chester Arthur’s certainly wasn’t. The MOTHERS of Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson were only US citizens because they married American men. They were never formally naturalized and did not renounce their citizenship in Canada or Britain respectively. They were, according to those countries’ laws, dual citizens. And several US presidents have been dual citizens either at birth (Wilson and some say Eisenhower) or when actually president (James Madison due to France having made him a full voting citizen).

                  The fact is that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and does not exclude any child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats, so Buchanan and Fremont and Arthur and Wilson and Hoover and Obama and Jindal and Rubio were or are all Natural Born Citizens. (Cruz MAY be one, but he was born in Canada, and thus does not fall under the original definition of Natural Born Citizen that comes from the common law.)

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “Because the bio does not mention something means that what you want it to mean is the truth? It could just as easily be the opposite. Also, have you never heard of someone who has become a US citizen wanting to be buried with his ancestors “in his native land”? You are reaching on this one. You have given no proof Fremont did not have a citizen father.”

                  HOWEVER, there is no question that Fremont’s father was French and that Fremont made no effort whatever to say that he was naturalized. He did not do so because, duh, he did not think that it was necessary to do so. And why wasn’t it necessary to do so? Because the fact that his father was or was not naturalized would not affect any votes. And why would that be if you have to have two citizen parents in order to be a Natural Born Citizen? Because you don’t need two citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.

                  Fremont was, btw, only one of three examples that I gave, Buchanan, Arthur and Fremont. And, for all three of them, there is no proof that their father was naturalized, and also no proof whatever that they hid the facts that their fathers were not naturalized.

              • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

                Re “Actually, James Buchanan, who was born after the expiration of the grandfather clause, also did not have a US citizen father. There is absolutely no evidence that Buchanan’s father was ever naturalized.”

                Actually… Buchanan DID have a U.S. citizen father.

                Here are the pertinent facts about Buchanan…

                He was born on April 23, 1791 in Cove Gap near Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. Since the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, and the grandfather clause only exempted those living at that time, Buchanan’s birth in 1791 did not allow him to be exempted from having to meet the three requirements for the presidency; including, being a natural born citizen.

                However, that had no effect on his eligibility to be president.

                Here is why… His father, James Buchanan, was born in 1761 in Ramelton, Ireland and came to America in 1783 at age 22. His mother, Elizabeth Speer, was born in 1767 in Stony Batter, Pennsylvania; and, thus, a native born U.S. citizen. Since father, James, was alive and already living in America at the time the Constitution was adopted, that document gave him U.S. citizenship, just as it did to every other person living in America at that time.

                Therefore, when President Buchanan was born on April 23 1791, he was born of two U.S. citizen parents and was a natural born citizen.

                Additionally, before the naturalization Act of 1790 was passed, there was no provision for anyone to become a citizen via naturalization; therefore, your protestation that President Buchanan’s father was never naturalized is both frivolous and illogical.

                Re “Moreover, the first presidential candidate of the REPUBLICAN party, who was James C. Fremont, had a French father, and his campaign biography makes no mention of his father ever being nationalized or that he wanted to, and in fact it says that Fremont’s father was intending to return to “his native land” when he died.”

                The man you describe was JOHN C. Fremont, not James… Regardless, your mention of him is meaningless since he never held the office of president. I would also point out that the Constitution only requires one to be a natural born citizen in order to “be eligible to the Office of President.” It does not say one must meet that requirement in order to run for president.

                Re “Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that Chester Arthur hid the fact that his father was not nationalized. None at all.”

                You must be exhausted doing all that research… (sarcasm…)

                See the information at the following links for the truth:

                “US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary of State Thomas Bayard Proves Chester Arthur’s British Birth Was Kept From Public.”
                http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/us-government-ruling-from-1885-by-secretary-of-state-thomas-bayard-proves-chester-arthurs-british-birth-was-kept-from-public/

                “HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH”
                http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

                Re “And, wait for it, neither Buchanan nor Arthur nor Obama did anything wrong.”

                Technically, Buchanan did nothing illegal because he never held the office of president. But, he did violate the spirit of the Constitution by campaigning for that office. Whether or not he did so knowingly is not known by me; although, he should have known. But, the point is moot since he never served in the capacity of president.

                However, BOTH Arthur and Obama did willingly and knowingly violate the letter of the Constitution and to make matters worse, they both did in fact do everything possible to cover up their crimes.

                Re “All of them, and Fremont, were all Natural Born Citizens because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.”

                Neither of the three were natural born citizens.

                See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

                And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

                Re “Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

                Black’s was not published until more than 100 years AFTER the Constitution was written and almost the same length of time after the Supreme Court, in Minor v Happersett, held the definition of natural born citizen to be “one born in U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                Re “Edwin Meese and The Wall Street Journal.”

                Nothing either of them could possibly have to say on the natural born citizen issue supersedes the holding by the Supreme Court as to the legal definition of that term.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “Since father, James, was alive and already living in America at the time the Constitution was adopted, that document gave him U.S. citizenship, just as it did to every other person living in America at that time. ”
                  Whow! A whole new fantasy. Do you really believe what you posted???

                  If so, please cite the words in the US constitution that actually naturalized “every person living in America” (which, btw, would have included blacks and Indians.) In fact, the US congress and Washington actually passed naturalization laws, which surely indicates that there were people here who were not yet citizens.

                  The fact is that Buchanan’s father neither became a naturalized citizen automatically when the Constitution was adopted (which nobody did since there is nothing in the Constitution about making people citizens when it was adopted), nor is there a record of his going through the procedure of being naturalized.

                  So Buchanan was not, under your rule a Natural Born Citizen because his father was not a citizen. Under the common law Buchanan WAS a Natural Born citizen because he was born on US soil, as was James C. Fremont and Chester Arthur.

                  One president who birthers claim was NOT a Natural Born Citizen because neither of his parents were naturalized before his birth was Andrew Jackson. According to the two-parent theory, Jackson was not a Natural Born Citizen and was only eligible because of the grandfather clause, which means that if he ran for president today he would not be allowed to be president under that idea because the grandfather clause has expired.

                  But, under the common law Andrew Jackson was a Natural Born Citizen because he was born on US soil—-so, if he ran today we would not have to throw away the ability to elect a brilliant president just because of an unproven theory of what the founders wanted——-when in fact they used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that it was used in the common law and not to refer to parents.

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  RE: “One president who birthers claim was NOT a Natural Born Citizen because neither of his parents were naturalized before his birth was Andrew Jackson. According to the two-parent theory, Jackson was not a Natural Born Citizen and was only eligible because of the grandfather clause, which means that if he ran for president today he would not be allowed to be president under that idea because the grandfather clause has expired.”

                  Birthers make no claim that Andrew Jackson was not eligible at the time that he ran and was elected, precisely because of the grandfather clause. You are correct, that after the expiration of the grandfather cause he would not be eligible. That is what the grandfather clause says!

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “You are correct, that after the expiration of the grandfather cause he would not be eligible. That is what the grandfather clause says! ”

                  No, the grandfather clause says that after the expiration of the grandfather clause (people born after the US Constitution went into effect), then citizens who were not Natural Born could not become president.

                  It is your theory, birther theory, that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen and hence Andrew Jackson would not be eligible if he ran for president today. HOWEVER, since the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents (not two, not even one), then Andrew Jackson would be eligible if he ran for president today regardless of the fact that two of his parents were not US citizens.

                  Under the common law we could have this great president. Under birther theory we could not. IF birther theory were right, we could not have Jackson, but it is not right. The term Natural Born does not come from a translation of Vattel, whose word “idigines” was not even translated as Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the Constitution was written. The phrase comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

              • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

                Re “Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that Chester Arthur hid the fact that his father was not nationalized. None at all.”

                You must be exhausted doing all that research… (sarcasm…)

                See the information at the following links for the truth:

                “US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary of State Thomas Bayard Proves Chester Arthur’s British Birth Was Kept From Public.”
                http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/us-government-ruling-from-1885-by-secretary-of-state-thomas-bayard-proves-chester-arthurs-british-birth-was-kept-from-public/

                “HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH”
                http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

                Re “And, wait for it, neither Buchanan nor Arthur nor Obama did anything wrong.”

                Technically, Buchanan did nothing illegal because he never held the office of president. But, he did violate the spirit of the Constitution by campaigning for that office. Whether or not he did so knowingly is not known by me; although, he should have known. But, the point is moot since he never served in the capacity of president.

                However, BOTH Arthur and Obama did willingly and knowingly violate the letter if the Constitution and to make matters worse, they both did in fact do everything possible to cover up their crimes.

                Re “All of them, and Fremont, were all Natural Born Citizens because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.”

                Neither of the three were natural born citizens.

                See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

                And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

                Re “Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

                Black’s was not published until more than 100 years AFTER the Constitution was written and almost the same length of time after the Supreme Court, in Minor v Happersett, held the definition of natural born citizen to be “one born in U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                Re “Edwin Meese and The Wall Street Journal.”

                Nothing either of them could possibly have to say on the natural born citizen issue supersedes the holding by the Supreme Court as to the legal definition of that term.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “Technically, Buchanan did nothing illegal because he never held the office of president.”

                  Actually, he was the president, the one just before Lincoln.

                  There is still no evidence that he or Arthur hid the fact that their fathers were not naturalized citizens. The opinion of secreatry of state Bayard that a US-born child of a German citizen is not a US citizen does not refer to Arthur, whose father was not a German (he was Irish). It is not proof that Arthur hid the citizenship of his father to merely show that an official at the time did not know about Arthur’s father’s citizenship. In any case, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was ruled by the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898, which was after secretary of state Bayard’s letter, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

        • smrstrauss

          You are wrong. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, as historical research confirms, and it refers to the place of birth, and in fact the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen does indeed come from the common law and does indeed refer to the place of birth and that EVERY CHILD born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

          That is why Senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson have all written that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the PLACE of birth, not the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen. And that is why TEN appeals courts have all said that the key US Supreme Court ruling was the Wong Kim Ark case and NOT Minor v. Happersett, and that the Wong Kim Ark case actually did rule that every child EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats) and that President Barack Obama, having been born in the USA (in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the repeated confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii shows) is therefore a Natural Born US Citizen. That’s TEN appeals courts for Obama and none for the two citizen parent theory.

          Here are some of the rulings:

          “Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

          Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

          Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

          Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

          Notice the reference to Minor v. Happersett in the ruling just above. The Economist Magazine puts it this way:

          “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.”

          Oh, and BTW, the current US Supreme Court, as well as the Wong Kim ark court, HAS ruled on the matter. On October 1, it turned down an appeal of one of the ten appeals court cases, the Farrar case in Georgia, which had ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen because the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court said so. The effect of turning down the appeal means that the ruling of the Farrar case (and the other nine appeals court cases) STANDS.

    • NPC

      Re:Although the drafters of the Constitution did not define what they meant when they required an American president to be a “natural born citizen,” it is generally thought that “citizen by birth” is the best modern-day equivalent. On that basis, Cruz appears entirely eligible — if he ever chooses to pursue the White House.

      We haven’t even unraveled, nor have 100% agreement,on the last problem, and we’re ready to go down the slippery slope some more?
      Come on people quit interpreting the Constitution to suit the situation.

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        “citizen by birth” …the new catch phrase to confuse the issue even more.

        • NPC

          Yeah I’m afraid we’ll be beating this subject to death for some time to come.
          300+ million people, 300+ million opinions.

    • CalCoolidge

      I guess after Obama we can toss out the entire Constitution.

    • smrstrauss

      Obama, having been born in Hawaii a US State, is a Natural Born Citizen because the term comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US born citizen. Two citizen parents are not required, not even one. Every child born in the USA (yes, including Anchor Babies and dual citizens) is a Natural Born Citizen because that is what the common law said, and that is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett). And so far TEN appeals courts have all said that the Wong Kim Ark ruling was the key ruling and that it said that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen, and not one court has said that Minor v. Happersett applies or that two citizen parents are required.

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    Love me another AmericanborninCanada ;-) I love Ted Cruz, he’s amazing- but I think right now he’s doing the best he can do in the best place for him to be. If he ever decides to run for Potus, I’ll gladly support him and hopefully by that time, I’ll actually be eligible to vote for him!
    Thanks Scoop!

  • http://www.facebook.com/LeeBDixon Lee B Dixon

    This article explains why Obama, Rubio, Jindal and Ted Cruz are NOT eligible to be president. Our Founding Fathers were not idiots… http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

    • stage9

      Agreed, as a foreign born citizen he can still be very useful to the Conservative cause, but President, I don’t think so. If we dismiss him, we will have to dismiss Obama too, and liberals will NOT let us forget that if Cruz runs.

      • Amjean

        From what I have read one has to be a natural born citizen which means
        your parents need to be US citizens at the time of your birth. If one is
        born to US citizens, however, in another country at the time of your birth,
        one is still a natural born citizen. John McCain was born in Panama to
        parents that were US citizens. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents that are US citizens. Marco Rubio was born in the US to parents that were not
        US citizens. Obama? Who the heck knows!

        • OneThinDime

          John McCain was born on a military base which is deemed as US soil as is any of our embassies

          • BlueGood

            I’ll convince Stephen Harper to cede an area of land the size of, and directly under Ted Cruz’s mothers hospital bed in Calgary to the U.S….will send you a little tiny deed, then it’s U.S. Soil….

            problem solved….~~snort~~

            • OneThinDime

              True Canadian Conservative, always comes to the table with a solution!

          • sDee

            His father was a military member, but McCain was not born on a US military base. He lied. He was born in private hospital (Colon). His BC is online.

            • OneThinDime

              So the Congress allowed both McCain and Obama, neither of whom qualified under the law to be POTUS. WTH

              • JesseTMims

                What country are you from? (Just kidding…) But, seriously, McCain has never been POTUS of the USA…

                • OneThinDime

                  Congress has to approve the eligibility BEFORE the election and approved eligibility for both Obama and McCain. What was the last grade you completed in public education? The first?

          • JesseTMims

            McCain was a citizen of the Republic of Panama when he was born. Please see my reply to SheerPolitics above.

        • stage9

          I can see why this whole thing is so confusing.

          How I always understood it was that you had to NOT have been born in a foreign country by foreign parents.

          But what do you do if your parents are VISITING a foreign country and she gives birth? Surely that doesn’t make you a citizen of that country!

          Now if the parents are citizens of that foreign country at the time of your birth, then that makes you a citizen of that country. But what of dual citizenship?

          • DavidRobertson

            My Sister was born in Spain. At age 18, she technically could have chosen one way or the other. If Spain honors dual citizenship, then by Spain’s standards she could be both. America does not honor dual citizenship and would deem her a citizen based on her choice at age 18.

            • stage9

              Ah, I see.

            • JesseTMims

              Dual citizenship is recognized by the U.S. government in most cases; and, even in some cases where security is an issue.

              See http://www.law.cornell.edu/search/top/dual%20citizenship

              BUT, if you are a dual citizen, you cannot be a natural born citizen. For a better understanding of the eligibility/natural born citizen issue, scroll through the comments and read the information I’ve linked to.

          • Nukeman60

            ‘But what do you do if your parents are VISITING a foreign country and she gives birth? Surely that doesn’t make you a citizen of that country!’ – stage9

            This example makes you a ‘citizen’, but not a ‘natural born citizen’. As with John McCain, if he weren’t born on the naval base (as rumor suggests), then he would be a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. If he had been born on US soil (the naval base) then he would be both a citizen and a natural born citizen.

            To be a ‘natural born citizen’ requires both “jus soli” (of the soil) and “jus sanguinis” (of the blood).

            • smrstrauss

              No. It simply requires birth on US soil.

              Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

              “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

              “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

              • Nukeman60

                I can see why you didn’t understand my point about Black’s Law Dictionary, as you just copy and paste from a single page in WikiPedia (and they don’t mention that particular point of error). Every single post you have made in the past on this subject comes directly from that page. It doesn’t make you look intelligent. It just makes you dependent on their point of view. I’m sure when you do more research, as it’s clear you need it, then you might start to understand – WikiPedia doesn’t rule the world.

                As to your ignorance of “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis”, It’s been explained to you many times in the past. If you must stay on that Wki page, then stay there. It’s where you’ll feel comfortable.

                • smrstrauss

                  When Black’s Law Dictionary, and Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and Senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson, and TEN appeals courts all say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and they say that the Wong Kim Ark decision of the US Supreme Court defined Natural Born Citizen as coming from the common law (not Vattel) and referring to the place of birth, then it is highly likely that the term Natural Born Citizen really does come from the common law (not Vattel) and really does refer to the place of birth.

                • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

                  Re “Black’s Law Dictionary, Edwin Meese, Senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson, et al…”

                  Not a single one of your sources supersedes the highest court in the USA, the U.S Supreme Court; which, in Minor v Happersett held that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                  See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=Minor

                  A ‘holding’ by SCOTUS is legally binding. Thus, when SCOTUS ‘held’ the above to be the term’s definition, that definition became the legal one. Minor was decided in 1875 therefore, any definition that happened to appear in some later dictionary (Black’s or ANY other) is meaningless; because, no mere dictionary supersedes a SCOTUS holding.

                  Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor, SCOTUS used that same definition in deciding cases. SCOTUS has never used a different definition OTHER that that one in deciding cases.

                  See http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966220/4-Supreme-Court-Cases-Define-Natural-Born-Citizen

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “which, in Minor v Happersett held that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                  But Minor v. Happersett did not hold that at all. If a court ruled that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up, is that a ruling that you HAVE to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up???

                  Well, look closely, that is all that Minor v. Happersett says. It simply says that if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, you certainly are without any doubt a Natural Born Citizen. But it does not say that you have to have both of the two possible ways. It never says any such thing.

                  The Economist has a slightly different explanation:

                  “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.’

                  Both the Economist and I agree that the Minor v. Happersett case did not settle the matter, as do the 10 appeals court cases, all of which say that the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor v. Happersert in any case, did settle the matter, and that the Wong Kim Ark case said that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

                  Re: “Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor…’

                  Answer: That is another birther myth. No case except for the Wong Kim Ark case ever defined Natural Born Citizen. And, you know, the Wong Kim Ark ruling was right, the historic research of the way that Americans used the term Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written shows that Americans used the term the way that it was used in the common law and did not use it to refer to parents.

              • Nukeman60

                I can see why you didn’t understand my point about Black’s Law Dictionary, as you just copy and paste from a single page in WikiPedia (and they don’t mention that particular point of error). Every single post you have made in the past on this subject comes directly from that page. It doesn’t make you look intelligent. It just makes you dependent on their point of view. I’m sure when you do more research, as it’s clear you need it, then you might start to understand – WikiPedia doesn’t rule the world.

                As to your ignorance of “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis”, It’s been explained to you many times in the past. If you must stay on that Wki page, then stay there. It’s where you’ll feel comfortable.

              • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

                Re Black’s Law Dictionary:

                The Constitution was adopted March 4, 1789. The very FIRST edition of Blacks’ Law Dictionary was not published until 1891, more than 100 years AFTER the Constitution; so, it has little use in telling us what the Constitution’s Framers knew to be the definition of “natural born citizen” at the time they write it into that document.

                Re Common Law:

                The Framers of the Constitution had just finished waging a bloody war specifically for the purpose of getting out from under Common Law! Do you seriously think they would deliberately place themselves BACK UNDER Common Law? That is an absurd notion on its face!

                But, regardless of your opinion on that matter, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

                See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=Minor

                A ‘holding’ by SCOTUS is legally binding. Thus, when SCOTUS ‘held’ the above to be the term’s definition, that definition became the legal one. Minor was decided in 1875 therefore, any definition that happened to appear in some later dictionary (Black’s or ANY other) is meaningless; because, no mere dictionary supersedes a SCOTUS holding.

                Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor, SCOTUS used that same definition in deciding cases. SCOTUS has never used a different definition OTHER that that one in deciding cases.

                See http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966220/4-Supreme-Court-Cases-Define-Natural-Born-Citizen

                Re “Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

                If that actually IS what Black’s says, what is described there is a native born citizen; and, the proof that there is a legal distinction between that type of citizenship and the status of being a NBC, can be found here:

                http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: ” so, it has little use in telling us what the Constitution’s Framers knew to be the definition of “natural born citizen” at the time they write it into that document.”

                  Answer. It is a summary of current historic legal research on the matter, and it is correct, as the Tucker and Rawle quotations show:

                  “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

                  (Notice that that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within a state.”) And this:

                  “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

                  These were both two men who were familiar with the writers of the Constitution, and they KNEW that the meaning came from the common law (as the US Supreme Court ruled in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case, and as Meese had in his book) and that it referred to the place of birth (as Black’s Law Dictionary and Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and the Congressional Research Service and the ten appeals courts all agree).

                  Re: “what is described there is a native born citizen.”

                  Answer: ALL Native Born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. (So, you may ask, why didn’t they use the term Native Born Citizen in the Constitution. Answer: Because (10 at the time the phrase Natural Born was far more popular than Native Born, I do not know why, but that is the case; and because (2) the term Natural Born is a legal term, and they were mainly lawyers and justices.

                  Re your citations. I have already given mine. People who are interested in doing their own research can find them above.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “the Framers of the Constitution had just finished waging a bloody war specifically for the purpose of getting out from under Common Law! Do you seriously think they would deliberately place themselves BACK UNDER Common Law? That is an absurd notion on its face!”

                  The answer is a simple YES. Yes, indeed, yes.

                  Don’t believe it? Well, John Jay wrote the first Constitution of the State of New York in 1777, right when the Revolution was going on, and it says that the common law of England and America as of the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) would remain the law of New York State unless and until a New York statute changed that law.

                  In addition to that the common law is referred to in the Federalist Papers about twenty times, and always with praise.

                  And then there are the common law terms, such as Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto, that are in the US Constitution.

          • smrstrauss

            Dual citizenship has no effect, and we have already had several presidents who were either dual citizens at the times of their births (Wilson and Eisenhower) or actually when president (James Madison).

            • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

              Re “Dual citizenship has no effect, and we have already had several presidents who were either dual citizens at the times of their births (Wilson and Eisenhower) or actually when president (James Madison).”

              You’re wrong all then way…

              Dual citizenship DOES make a difference.

              But, THAT is not relative to either Wilson or Eisenhower being president because neither were dual citizens.

              President Wilson was born on December 28, 1856 in Staunton, Virginia. His father, Reverend Dr. Joseph Wilson was born in Steubenville, Ohio in 1822, making HIM a U.S. citizen. President Wilson’s mother was, Jessie Janet Woodrow, was born in Carlisle, England in 1826. Her parents married prior to 1851 and her mother automatically gained citizenship upon marriage in accordance with naturalization statutes of the period.

              Eisenhower was born on October 14, 1890 in Denison, Texas. His father, David Eisenhower, was born on September 23, 1863 in Elizabethville, Pennsylvania. IKE’s mother, Ida Elizabeth Stover, was born in Mount Sidney, Virginia on May 1, 1862.

              • smrstrauss

                Re: “Wilson or Eisenhower being president because neither were dual citizens.”

                Insufficient historic research. Wilson was a dual citizen because although his mother became a US citizen when she married Wilson’s father, she never gave up her British citizen status. She was not formally naturalized so she did not swear an oath of allegiance or renounce British status. So, as far as Britain was concerned, Wilson was a British subject when he was born.

                Eisenhower was born the grandson of GERMAN immigrants, and according to old German laws, the grandchildren of its citizens were German at birth.

                What the two cases show is that not merely does dual citizenship have no effect on Natural Born Citizen status, but that US-born dual citizens tend to be loyal to the USA and that it would be stupid to allow foreign laws, like those of Germany in Eisenhower’s case, to determine the eligibility of US presidents.

                And, in fact we don’t. If we did, a country could just pass a law making candidate X a citizen of that country or whole categories of US citizens citizens of that country, and presto, they would not be eligible. THAT would be truly stupid. But, not to worry, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the common law has always included dual citizens, so it has no effect.

          • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

            That depends on the country. For example, being born in Mexico to American parents does NOT make you a Mexican citizen. Meanwhile we let anyone who is born here, even if the parents are illegal, a US citizen. How long before we have some anchor baby saying he can run for president?

          • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

            That depends on the country. For example, being born in Mexico to American parents does NOT make you a Mexican citizen. Meanwhile we let anyone who is born here, even if the parents are illegal, a US citizen. How long before we have some anchor baby saying he can run for president?

            • smrstrauss

              Re: “How long.”

              Since there are 315 or so million of us, it may take a while. But an Anchor Baby is a Natural Born Citizen, and hence she or he is eligible.

              Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to illegal immigrant Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

              “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

          • JesseTMims

            Re “I can see why this whole thing is so confusing.

            It’s only confusing if you pay attention to the misinformation being put out by people like the person calling him/herself “smrstrauss” here in these comments.

            Scroll through the comments and click the various links I have provided and you will begin to understand the issue better. I apologize that many are duplicates; but, I believe it’s important to make sure that every time misinformation is posted that it is countered with factual information.

            Re “How I always understood it was that you had to NOT have been born in a foreign country by foreign parents.

            The legal definition of natural born citizen is “one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.”

            Re “But what do you do if your parents are VISITING a foreign country and
            she gives birth? Surely that doesn’t make you a citizen of that country!”

            You’re right, it doesn’t. Generally speaking, if you are born of at least one U.S. citizen parent anywhere in the world, you are also a U.S. citizen. HOWEVER… that alone does NOT make you a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen, you MUST meet the definition I quoted above.

            Re “Now if the parents are citizens of that foreign country at the time of
            your birth, then that makes you a citizen of that country. But what of
            dual citizenship?”

            If your parents are dual citizens of a foreign country and the USA, you are still usually considered to be a U.S. citizen; AND, you also still qualify as a natural born citizen IF you meet the definition quoted above. In other words, if your dual citizen parents and your mother gives birth to you while on U.S. soil, you’re a natural born citizen. If she gives birth to you while in any foreign country, you are not a natural born citizen.

            I should also note that U.S. Territories, Embassies, military bases, and ships are considered to be “U.S. soil.”

        • sDee

          Natural Born means born to a father and mother who are citizens of our country (i.e. Natural, Native or Naturalized), and on US soil. Only US territories, embassies and US bases are considered US soil outside our boundaries.

          These concepts go back over 1000 years in nationality law. Look up “jus soli” (of the soil of), and “Jus sanguinis” (of the blood of).

          John McCain was born on Panamanian soil in a private hospital. He was ineligible to run for the office of President. The dems caught onto this early on in 2007 but instead of exposing him, they used the fool to coverup what they knew to was Hussein’s ineligibility.

          Nancy Pelosi offered McCain a House resolution to declare him eligible. As the House dose not have the authority to override the Constitution, McCain was complicit in an unlawful act by Congress.

          Once Hussein’s ineligibility was discovered the elephants had already, as they say, “screwed the pooch”

          What a tangled web we weave, once we practice to deceive.

          Traitors the whole damn lot of them!

          • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

            No, John McCain was born in the US military hospital Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. The Panama Canal was under US control at the time. I don’t like “Wacko Bird” McCain either, but he WAS a US citizen and eligible to run.

          • smrstrauss

            Actually, Natural Born citizen status simply requires birth on US soil.

            Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

            “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

              Re Black’s Law Dictionary:

              The Constitution was adopted March 4, 1789. The very FIRST edition of Blacks’ Law Dictionary was not published until 1891, more than 100 years AFTER the Constitution; so, it has little use in telling us what the Constitution’s Framers knew to be the definition of “natural born citizen” at the time they write it into that document.

              Re Common Law:

              The Framers of the Constitution had just finished waging a bloody war specifically for the purpose of getting out from under Common Law! Do you seriously think they would deliberately place themselves BACK UNDER Common Law? That is an absurd notion on its face!

              But, regardless of your opinion on that matter, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

              See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=Minor

              A ‘holding’ by SCOTUS is legally binding. Thus, when SCOTUS ‘held’ the above to be the term’s definition, that definition became the legal one. Minor was decided in 1875 therefore, any definition that happened to appear in some later dictionary (Black’s or ANY other) is meaningless; because, no mere dictionary supersedes a SCOTUS holding.

              Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor, SCOTUS used that same definition in deciding cases. SCOTUS has never used a different definition OTHER that that one in deciding cases.

              See http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966220/4-Supreme-Court-Cases-Define-Natural-Born-Citizen

              Re “Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

              If that actually IS what Black’s says, what is described there is a native born citizen; and, the proof that there is a legal distinction between that type of citizenship and the status of being a NBC, can be found here:

              http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

              • smrstrauss

                Re: Black’s Law Dictionary and your claim that ” so, it has little use in telling us what the Constitution’s Framers knew to be the definition of “natural born citizen” at the time they write it into that document.”

                Answer. Black’s Law Dictionary is a summary of current historic legal research on the matter, and it is correct, as the Tucker and Rawle quotations show:

                “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

                (Notice that that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within a state.”) And this:

                “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

                These were both two men who were familiar with the writers of the Constitution, and they KNEW that the meaning came from the common law (as the US Supreme Court ruled in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case, and as Meese had in his book) and that it referred to the place of birth (as Black’s Law Dictionary and Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and the Congressional Research Service and the ten appeals courts all agree).

                Re: “what is described there is a native born citizen.”

                Answer: ALL Native Born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. (So, you may ask, why didn’t they use the term Native Born Citizen in the Constitution. Answer: Because (10 at the time the phrase Natural Born was far more popular than Native Born, I do not know why, but that is the case; and because (2) the term Natural Born is a legal term, and they were mainly lawyers and justices.

                Re your citations. I have already given mine. People who are interested in doing their own research can find them above.

                • JesseTMims

                  Again, your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is wrong.

                  See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

                  And, once again… none of your other sources supersede the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of natural born citizen is one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.

                  See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

                  and http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

                  You can ignore the truth of that for the rest of your life and it will not change the facts.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: ”
                  Again, your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is wrong.
                  See _http://naturalborncitizen.word…_ (http://naturalborncitizen.word…)
                  Answer: Leo Donofrio has his own interpretation, and he is one of the three birther lawyers. They are wrong. TEN APPEALS COURTS have all ruled that the Wong Kim Ark ruling did indeed say exactly what I said, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. If Leo were right, none of those courts would have ruled that way, and the Heritage Foundation would not have written in its guide to the Constitution that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth. Nor would the Wall Street Journal have written:
                  Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. Re: ‘And, once again… none of your other sources supersede the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of natural born citizen is one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents. See _http://naturalborncitizen.word…_ (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitut ional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/)
                  and _http://naturalborncitizen.word…_ (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligibl e-to-be-president/)
                  You can ignore the truth of that for the rest of your life and it will not change the facts.”
                  Answer: The facts are very simple, the Minor v. Happersett case did not rule that two citizen parents are required, nor did any other Supreme Court ruling, and the Wong Kim Ark case, which was AFTER Minor v . Happersett (and hence is the key ruling) ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen.
                  The Economist Magazine put it this way: “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called _Minor v Happersett_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html) . In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.”

          • smrstrauss

            Actually, Natural Born citizen status simply requires birth on US soil.

            Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

            “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Natural Born means born to a father and mother who are citizens of our country…’

            No, it simply refers to the place of birth. It is based on jus soli, not jus sanguinis:

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

              sDee said: “Natural Born means born to a father and mother who are citizens of our country…'”

              smrstrauss said: “No, it simply refers to the place of birth. It is based on jus soli, not jus sanguinis:”

              sDee is right. In order to be a natural born citizen, one MUST be born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.

              See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

              And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

              Re Ed Meese/Common Law…

              Ed Meese does not supersede the U.S. Supreme Court. As for Common Law, the Framers of the Constitution had just finishing fighting a bloody war with King George specifically to get out from under Common Law! You can’t seriously believe they would have deliberately put themselves and their newly founded nation BACK under Common Law…

              • smrstrauss

                You seem to be saying that the chief justice of the USA was committing an illegal act, or did not know the Constitution when he swore in Obama (four times). But that is not true; Chief Justice Roberts knows the Constitution and he knows that there is nothing in it or in ANY Supreme Court ruling that says that two citizen parents are required. Roberts is right, you are wrong.

                Moreover, virtually nobody (except for a few birther lawyers like Apuzzo and Donofrio) believe the two-parent theory. Birthers tried to get the members of the US Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama out of this theory. And what was the result? Well, in 2008 Obama received 356 Electoral votes, and not one of the 356 electors changed her or his vote. And, in 2012 Obama received 332 Electoral votes, and not one of the 332 electors changed her or his vote. That is a total of about 690 educated people from whom birthers could not convince even ONE that two citizen parents are required.

                And the US Supreme Court really did rule in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was after Minor v. Happersett, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, And TEN appeals courts have really said that the Wong Kim Ark case is the key ruling on NBC status and that it ruled that every child born in the country is a NBC. Not one of them said that the Minor v. Happersett case applied (and it did not say that two citizen parents are required either). And on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of the ten cases, which had ruled that every child is a NBC (except for the children of foreign diplomats). And the effect of that is that the ruling of the appeals court, and the other nine appeals courts, stands.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “the Framers of the Constitution had just finished waging a bloody war specifically for the purpose of getting out from under Common Law! Do you seriously think they would deliberately place themselves BACK UNDER Common Law? That is an absurd notion on its face!”

                  The answer is a simple YES. Yes, and again, YES.

                  Don’t believe it? Well John Jay wrote the first Constitution of the State of New York in 1777, right while the Revolution was going on, and it says that the common law of England and America as of the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) would remain the law of New York State unless and until a New York statute changed that law.

                  In addition to that the common law is referred to in the Federalist Papers about twenty times, and always with praise.

                  And then there are the common law terms, such as Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto, that are in the US Constitution.

                • JesseTMims

                  Re “John Jay wrote the first Constitution of the State of New York in 1777, right while the Revolution was going on, and it says that the common law of England and America as of the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) would remain the law of New York State unless and until a New York statute changed that law.”

                  First of all, John Jay was the only member of the NY Constitutional Convention who was also among the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore your attempt to connect the Framers as a whole with the NY document is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

                  Your implication that it was that John Jay alone who wrote the NY Constitution is also in error. There were a number of others who were members of the convention which created it, including Robert R. Livingston and Gouverneur Morris, both of whom were instrumental in drafting it, as well as Leonard Gansevoort, who
                  signed it as President pro tempore.

                  While John Jay is considered to be that document’s primary author, he was not even present at the time it was adopted; and, it ended up being put into effect minus a number of amendments he had intended to add to it. To remedy that, he proposed changes to the Constitution when he became Governor of NY.

                  As for English Common Law, the NY Constitution was a combination state constitution and a strongly worded Declaration of Independence from ” the many tyrannical and oppressive usurpations of the King andParliament of Great Britain on the rights and liberties of the people ofthe American colonies” and, the only the parts of English Common Law it contained were those which coincided with the concept of a republican form of government.

                  On the other hand, it firmly disavowed any real fondness for British Common Law by stating “Thatall such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutesand acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establishor maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers,or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty,
                  government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of GreatBritain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants,or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated [meaning abolished] and rejected.”

                  Thus, your premise that the Framers of the Constitution OR the people of NY would deliberately place themselves back under the constraints of British Common Law fails miserably.

                  By the way, since you either have not done so; or, you are being willfully ignorant, feel free to read the actual document in it’s entirety here: http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “Thus, your premise that the Framers of the Constitution OR the people of NY would deliberately place themselves back under the constraints of British Common Law fails miserably…’

                  Answer: Rational readers of this site will regard it is strange, if not loony, that to say that New York State put itself under the common law with a few exceptions is not to put itself under the common law MAINLY. And that mainly is the part that is really important.

                  The common law applied in New York until a New York statute was passed changing it, with the exception of the few exceptions you mention. And, in addition to this evidence, there is the fact that the common law was referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise, and the fact that such common law terms as Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto are in the Constitution.

                  But the discussion is not whether or not the USA is legally under the common law. It is whether it is more likely that the term Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, where it had been used for 300 years, or from a translation of the word “indignes” in the Swiss philosopher Vattel’s book. And since “indignes” was not translated as “Natural Born Citizen” until TEN years after the Constitution was written, the Vattel possibility is extremely unlikely.

                • JesseTMims

                  Re “You seem to be saying that the chief justice of the USA was committing an illegal act, or did not know the Constitution when he swore in Obama (four times). But that is not true…” (…)
                  Since I said no such thing, you seem to be trying to put words into my mouth; which, means you have nothing real with which to successfully counter my actual arguments.

                  As for Roberts swearing in Obama, the act of swearing in presidents is simply a traditional ceremonial duty of a Chief Justice; so, the fact that Roberts did so with Obama has no bearing on whether or not Obama is ELIGIBLE to BE president.

                  If and when one of the Obama eligibility cases reaches the Supreme Court, then and only then will Roberts have any legal authority to have a say in that matter other than expressing a personal opinion. But, publicly expressing such an opinion about a matter that is likely to sooner or later come before the Court would be out of order, if not outright illegal.

                  Re “Chief Justice Roberts knows the Constitution and he knows that there is nothing in it or in ANY Supreme Court ruling that says that two citizen parents are required.”

                  Sooooo…. NOW, you profess to have the ability to KNOW the mind of the Chief Justice…

                  Re “Roberts is right, you are wrong.”

                  Roberts and I are not debating. You and I are; and, YOU are wrong and I am right…

                  Re “Moreover, virtually nobody (except for a few birther lawyers like Apuzzo and Donofrio) believe the two-parent theory.”

                  Actually, there are many others… including Democrat Philip Berg, friend and supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who has filed several suits against Obama dealing with his lack of eligibility. There was also at least one other Democratic presidential candidate who was a plaintiff in an Obama lawsuit; but, I suspect you are well aware of most of the other cases/lawyers/plaintiffs despite your troll like protestations to the contrary; so, I won’t waste your time or mine naming all of them.

                  Re “the US Electoral College”

                  Nothing related to that body supersedes the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v Happersett that the definition of natural born citizen is one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.

                  See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

                  And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

                  Re “Wong Kim Ark”

                  The interpretation of that case which is used to challenge the true definition of natural born citizen is wrong…

                  See “Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.”
                  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “As for Roberts swearing in Obama, the act swearing in presidents is simply a traditional ceremonial duty of a Chief Justice; so, the fact that Roberts did so with Obama has no bearing on whether or not Obama is eligible to BE president. ”

                  Roberts, who has sworn an oath to preserve and protect the US Constitution, swore in Obama, four times. IF he had thought that Obama was not a Natural Born US Citizen, don’t you think that Roberts would at least have mentioned that fact?

                  Okay, so say that Roberts did not consider the matter and thus might not know that according to your theory two citizen parents are required. But on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of a ruling that said that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, and that is not simply a traditional ceremony. Both the ruling of the appeals court, and the ruling of nine other courts all of which said the same thing, said that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen, and the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those rulings, allowing the ruling of the lower level courts to STAND.

                  Those ten rulings and the rejection of the appeal are right, and you are wrong.

        • stage9

          I think only ONE of Cruz’s parents was a citizen right?

          • JesseTMims

            Right, see my reply to Amjean above.

        • proverbs2611

          I wish it was determined earlier that John McCain wasn’t eligible to run for potus. Perhaps we would have been in a different situation.

          • sDee

            I wish McCain had stood on principle so he could have then questioned Obama’s.

            • UnCL3

              McLame is as unprincipled as they come…

        • DavidRobertson

          Me and 4 of my siblings were born in the US. My 5th sibling was born in Spain. I don’t think that just because my mother happened to have the baby overseas discounts my sister’s natural born status. There are plenty of cases for precedence that agree with me. Now, if my sister chose to be Spanish that would be a different story.

          • sDee

            It is just a matter of definitions in laws of nationality. If she was born in Spain she is not a natural born citizen. If your mother was a US citizen, your sister is a native citizen. Just as someone who legally immigrates is not a native citizen – they are naturalized citizens.

            Changing the meaning of words is a Progressive trick. Do not be fooled.

            • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

              His sister cannot be a native citizen if she was not born here. Native means born on the soil. She is a citizen by her parents being citizens. But she is not native if she was born in Spain.

              • Nukeman60

                That’s true. So many people intermix the definition of ‘citizen’, ‘native born citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ until we become dizzy. They are all different and must be seen as different entities. I think sDee just misspoke, as s/he understands the difference in the meanings (as I’ve seen from past posts).

                • smrstrauss

                  All native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The reason that the term Native Born was not used in the Constitution was that it was not a popular term at the time. Natural Born was used very frequently, and it was always used to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth and never used to refer to the citizenship of the parents.

                  The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

                  “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. “— http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett

                • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

                  Re “All native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens.”

                  Not true, Immigration and Naturalization Service laws recognize that there is a clear distinction between native born citizens, naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

                  Re “The reason that the term Native Born was not used in the Constitution was that it was not a popular term at the time. Natural Born was used very frequently…”

                  That is pure unadulterated BS. The concepts of granting citizenship on the basis of being born of the soil (jus soli/native born) and blood (jus sanguinis) have been equally known and accepted since well before the time the Constitution was written. So was the concept of the natural born citizen; which, is a combination of the two.

                  Re “and it was always used to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth and never used to refer to the citizenship of the parents”

                  Wrong… The term natural born citizen has ALWAYS been defined as “one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.” In 1975, a bill was introduced before Congress that, if passed, would have CHANGED the definition FROM that to coincide with YOUR definition. Between 2003 and 2008, several more attempts were made to do the same thing. IF your definition had ALWAYS been the accepted one, there would have been NO reason for those attempts to have been made.

                  In other words, it has only been relatively recently that efforts have been made to change the true definition of NBC from what it has always been to a different one.

                  Re “”Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. “— http://online.wsj.com/article/…”

                  Not true at ALL… See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

                • smrstrauss

                  Leo Donofrio is a nice guy and smart, but he is wrong on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and the Wall Street Journal and the Economist and Edwin Meese and senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and the ten appeals courts and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case are all right.

                  And every native born citizen is a Natural Born Citizen since every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

                  Re: “In 1975, a bill was introduced before Congress that, if passed, would have CHANGED the definition FROM that to coincide with YOUR definition.”

                  Actually, it would not have done anything like that at all. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen excludes naturalized citizens.

                  The proposed amendment (and legislators have been trying to make that change since at least the 1950s when it was noticed that the author of God Bless America, Irving Berlin, was not eligible to be president) would have removed the word Natural. By removing the word Natural, all citizens, Natural Born and Naturalized (and those are the only two categories), would have been eligible to become president.

                  But the attempted changes, some of which were proposed by Republicans, were not successful. So, the original definition of Natural Born Citizen still applies. So, what does it mean? Its meaning comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

                • smrstrauss

                  No law in the USA has ever required BOTH birth in the country and two citizen parents for anything. And the Minor v. Happersett case never set any such requirement for Natural Born Citizenship, and the historic examples of Tucker and Rawle, who wrote at the time and knew the writers of the Constitution shows that they knew that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law and referred to the place of birth.

                  “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

                  “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

                • JesseTMims

                  The WSJ? lol… Why do you keep quoting sources that have no authority or jurisdiction in the matter of the definition of natural born citizen?

                • smrstrauss

                  Replying to: “The WSJ? lol… Why do you keep quoting sources that have no authority or jurisdiction in the matter of the definition of natural born citizen?”

                  The opinions of the Wall Street Journal and of senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson’s opinion and that of Black’s Law Dictionary are considerably better than that of birther lawyer Leo Donofrio, which you have cited. AND, here is the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, which does have authority and jurisdiction:

                  “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
                  III. The same rule was in force in all 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.”
                  As you can see, that says that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law (“by the law of England for the last three centuries”) but it says that the rule applied more than in England. It said that the same rule applied in the American colonies and in the early states, and CONTINUED TO PREVAIL UNDER THE CONSTITUITON.
                  IT says that every child except for “the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation” is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

                • smrstrauss

                  All native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The reason that the term Native Born was not used in the Constitution was that it was not a popular term at the time. Natural Born was used very frequently, and it was always used to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth and never used to refer to the citizenship of the parents.

                  The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

                  “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. “— http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett

        • aposematic

          Was Cruz’s father a US citizen at the time Ted was born? The article says his mother was a US citizen. If you believe the bull of who was Obuma’s birth father, I don’t, then Obuma’s father was not a US citizen and it doesn’t matter where Obuma was born he was not a Natural Born Citizen.

          • macwell

            I believe the reason for all the secrecy is that Obama isn’t Barack’s real father, but Frank Davis is, that’s why he was eligible, or so it could be twisted. He, the President, didn’t have to reveal who his real father was because the investigation never happened.

            • smrstrauss

              Obama’s legal father, the one on his birth certificate is Barack Hussein Obama I, and that is what counts legally. No one is going to do a DNA test. (And who cares anyway, you cannot inherit communism anymore than you can inherit Methodism) However, the citizenship of Obama’s father has absolutely no effect on Obama’s natural born citizen status because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of two or even one parent.

              • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

                Re “you cannot inherit communism anymore than you can inherit Methodism”

                That is true; but, one DOES inherit allegiance to the country of origin of one’s father and mother; UNLESS, the parents have denounced their own allegiance to their country of birth by becoming naturalized citizens. If they become naturalized citizens before their child is born, said child is a natural born citizen.

                Re ” the citizenship of Obama’s father has absolutely no effect on Obama’s natural born citizen status because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of two or even one parent”

                Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court and the current INS law.

                See

                http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=Minor

                and

                http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “That is true; but, one DOES inherit allegiance to the country of origin of one’s father…’

                  Answer. No. In the USA and Britain legal allegiance is determined by the place of birth.

                  In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

                  ‘It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

                  And, btw, why can’t you, in your theory, inherit allegiance from a mother?

                • JesseTMims

                  Re “James Madison said…”

                  That must have been taken out of context somehow; because, just a few years later when Madison was president, his administration did not even accept simply being born on U.S. soil alone to mean that someone was even a citizen. In other words, his administration’s belief was that according to U.S. law, being born to at least one citizen parent was required for one to even be a citizen.

                  See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/

                  Madison was also one of the members of the third Congress who led the charge to repeal the Naturalization Act of 1790 and replace it with he NA of 1795. The reason the NA of 1790 was repealed was because it attempted to illegally change the Constitution by simple legislation rather than via the ratification of an amendment to that document. it also erred in that it attempted to illegally change the definition of natural born citizen from that which the Framers intended to mean something different.

                  Re “why can’t you, in your theory, inherit allegiance from a mother?”

                  You have a problem comprehending what you read, don’t you…

                  I clearly stated that “one DOES inherit allegiance to the country of origin of one’s father and mother…”

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “his administration did not even accept simply being born on U.S. soil alone to mean that someone was even a citizen.”

                  Answer: I doubt that this is true. Please show evidence to support it.

          • Amjean

            I read that Ted Cruz’s father wasn’t a citizen; only the mother. However, there is so much misinformation on this
            topic, that I really don’t know.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama was born in Hawaii, and that matters because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama was born in Hawaii, and that matters because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth.

            • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

              Re “Obama was born in Hawaii, and that matters because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth.”

              Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court and the current INS law.

              See

              http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=Minor

              and

              http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

              • smrstrauss

                Leo Donofrio is a nice guy, but he is wrong. The US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen, and ten appeals courts have all ruled that the US Supreme Court did indeed rule that, and on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten rulings, meaning that the ruling of the lower court, that every child born in the USA is a NBC except for the children of foreign diplomats, STANDS.

                • JesseTMims

                  Re “Leo Donofrio is a nice guy, but he is wrong. The US Supreme Court ruled
                  in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born in the USA is a Natural
                  Born US Citizen”

                  Once again… your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is wring.

                  See ” Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.”
                  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

                  Re “and ten appeals courts have all ruled that the US Supreme Court did indeed rule that”

                  If that’s the case, those ten appeals courts obviously misinterpreted Wong Kim Ark, also.

                • smrstrauss

                  You are claiming that Leo Donofrio is right, and the ten appeals courts are wrong. But it is obvious that it is the other way around. How do we know? Because on October 1 of last year the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten appeal court case, which had ruled that indeed the US Supreme Court ruled on the matter in the Wong Kim Ark case (which Leo claims it did not do), and that the US Supreme Court had ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, except for the children of foreign diplomats (which Leo also claimed that the US Supreme Court did not do). By turning down the appeal of one of those ten cases, the US Supreme Court allowed its judgement, and those of the other nine cases, that the US Supreme Court decided the matter in the Wong Kim Ark case and that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats to STAND.

                  Leo is wrong, the US Supreme Court and the ten appeals courts, and Black’s Law Dictionary and Senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson, and Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, Edwin Meese, are right.

          • JesseTMims

            Re Ted
            Cruz: He was born in Canada, not on U.S. soil, and had only ONE U.S. citizen parent (his mother). He has never denied his birth status. But, despite his lack of eligibility, he claims to be both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.

            Re Obama: He was possibly born on U.S. soil; but, even if he was born in Hawaii as he claims, he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent at birth; whereas TWO are required. He has never disputed the fact that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Despite his lack of eligibility, he willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee in both 2008 and 2012 and even accepted the title of president even though he can never be an Article II, Section I, paragraph 5 president.

        • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

          Re “From what I have read one has to be a natural born citizen which means
          your parents need to be US citizens at the time of your birth. If one is
          born to US citizens, however, in another country at the time of your birth,
          one is still a natural born citizen.”

          Sorry, the legal definition of natural born citizen is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.” That is the definition that was held to be the legal one by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett.

          See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

          And http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

          Now… Who is NOT a natural born citizen and; therefore, NOT eligible to become president…

          Here are some very well known names who fail the test:

          1. John McCain: Born of two U.S. citizens; but, NOT born on U.S. soil. Rather than having been born in a U.S. Naval Hospital on a U.S.. Naval Base inside the Panama Canal Zone, as he often claims, he was actually born in Colon Hospital in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama! Even if he had been born inside the Panama Canal Zone, he was, by Panamanian law, still a citizen of Panama at birth. See the detailed explanation, including link to his birth certificate: “John McCain, citizen of Panama at birth” at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=John+McCain. Despite his lack of eligibility, McCain willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the GOP candidate for president in 2008.

          2. Barack Obama: Possibly born on U.S. soil; but, even if he was born in Hawaii as he claims, he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent at birth; whereas TWO are required. He has never disputed the fact that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Despite his lack of eligibility, he willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee in both 2008 and 2012 and even accepted the title of president even though he can never be an Article II, Section I, paragraph 5 president.

          3. Marco Rubio: Has never disputed the fact that neither of his parents became naturalized citizens until AFTER he was born. But, because they did not, he is not a natural born citizen; even though he was born in Miami, Florida. Despite his lack of eligibility, he refuses to admit that he is not. Whenever asked, he says he is both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.

          4. Ted Cruz: Born in Canada, not on U.S. soil, and had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. He has never denied his birth status. But, despite his lack of eligibility, he claims to be both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.

          5. Piyush “Bobby” Jindal: Born on U.S. soil in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to immigrants from India who arrived in America only six months before he was born. Since it takes years to become a naturalized citizen after coming to this country, it is impossible for Jindal’s parents to have completed the naturalization process before he was born. Despite his lack of eligibility, he maintains that he is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.

          One VERY important question ALL conservatives should be asking themselves is why the GOP is seemingly even more hellbent that the Democratic Party to finish ripping apart the Constitution by grooming so many NON-eligible candidates for the office of president.

          • Amjean

            Perhaps the reason the dems and the rinos pushed John McCain on us
            (remember the media loved him until he was running against Obama) is that
            they wanted to set a precedent which would broaden the rules. I also think
            that socialists/marxists/communists have infiltrated the parties on both
            sides.

            Many seem to want to “shred” our constitution. It is all very sad, really.

            I also did not know about Jindal. Thanks for that information. It is all
            very confusing because when one does research online, one gets all different
            points of view on this. Anyways, thanks for the info.

            • smrstrauss

              McCain was born at the family hospital on the US Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone, and since he was born on US soil, he is a Natural Born US Citizen.

              Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency….”

          • Amjean

            More fodder to chew on (I pulled this from another website discussing
            this subject):

            “How many bazillion times are we going to have to whip this horse? One of the Constitutional Requirements for President of the United States is to be a “Natural Born Citizen.” Not just a “Citizen” but a “Natural Born Citizen.” That requirement is stricter than having mere “Citizen” status. It does not mean you were born within the US Borders (that would be “Native born”) nor does it mean you have somehow become a US Citizen (that would be “Naturalized”) but it does mean that both your Parents were US Citizens at the time of your birth. If you claim to have any respect for the United States, it’s Constitution and it’s Laws, then that is the definition you need to use, like it or not.”

            This is the position that I think makes the most sense out of what the
            founders were trying to accomplish (I also read a couple of letters from
            the founders which back this definition), however, also know that much
            of this can be interpreted differently depending on the political objective.

            • smrstrauss

              The US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen. Hence every native born citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. The only kind of citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen is a naturalized citizen.

              The Wall Street Journal puts it this way: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”–(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “grooming so many NON-eligible candidates for the office of president.’

            Rubio and Jindal are certainly eligible because they were born on US soil. (So was Obama, in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show.) The US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth—not to the citizenship of the parents of a US born citizen.

            And, so far, ten appeals courts have confirmed that that was the ruling that the Wong Kim Ark case made, and not one has ever said that two citizen parents are required. Nor does Black’s Law Dictionary or The Heritage Foundation Guide to the Constitution, or Senators Hatch and Graham or former Senator Fred Thompson:

            http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

            http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

    • proverbs2611

      Is there any way to fit Christie in there too?

      • PVG

        He no longer fits in many things.

    • NPC

      Thanks Lee for the link. It would be helpful for many to read, and understand.
      There are too many miss interpretations, and that is sad.
      Oddly it seems, that a lot of the ‘qualified’ people that most of us are exited about are all “foreign born”. However just think, up to about thirty to forty years ago, this was the land of opportunity. Every body wanted to come here, and oddly enough today not too many want to leave here, (yet).
      I see a huge division in our Nation, and that cannot end well. We all know the saying:
      …..divided we fall. We better get our constitution in hand and stand together as one, everything else hasn’t worked out so well lately.

    • smrstrauss

      See MANY other references that disagree above.

      • http://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims Jesse T Mims

        McCain is no more a natural born citizen than is Obama. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/john-mccain-citizen-of-panama-at-birth/

        • smrstrauss

          Obama was born in a US STATE, Hawaii. McCain was born on a US military base on leased soil. There is some question whether a leased military base is US soil, but US law certainly applies—–so I think that it probably is.

          So, on that basis, both Obama and McCain were born on US soil, and so both of them are Natural Born Citizens because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. And in fact ten appeals courts have ruled that (nine on Obama and one on McCain) that is the law, and on October 1 of last year the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those cases, the Farrar case in Georgia, which had ruled that Obama was a NBC due to the Wong Kim Ark case saying that every child born in the USA is a NBC, so the US Supreme Court left the ruling in that case, and the other nine appeals court cases STANDING.

  • stage9

    I don’t know about this. This is the same argument being made AGAINST Obama’s citizenship.

    A natural born citizen is someone born in the US by American citizen parents.

    • sDee

      A natural born citizen is someone born in the US by American citizen parents.

      Precisely. That is a core principle concept behind sovereignty. And there was extremely important logic behind the Founders including it. And because even that Natrual Born Clause was still troubling to an educated populace, they demanded the Bill of Rights to further constrain the powers of the Federal Government.

      Obama is at very best an Post-American collectivist who believes in global governance. We now have such a man destroying America from within because we ignored the Founders. Because we did not learn, understand and defend our Constitution.

      Cruz, like Rubio once did, has the pulpit to declare his belief in the US Constitution. Declare himself ineligible. Be a great leader instead of another politcal opportunist.

      This is the true test of the man. Rubio failed it. Cruz could rise above all those in politics. Take the high ground as the defender of our Constitutional Republic. Or he can join the other bottom feeders in DC.
      We will see.

      • stage9

        You get the post of the day!

        The law of the Constitution is what separates the TYRANTS from the PATRIOTS! You don’t break the law because tyrants do, you defy the tyrant and hold him accountable to the law!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        But the constitution doesn’t specifically say American citizen parents required for natural born status. And that’s the problem.

        • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

          Vecause it was a well understood term at the time of the writing of the Constitution, nbc was not defined therein. It would be like defining tree or dog. But SCOTUS has defined it in several cases, most eloquently in Miner vs Happrsett. Check out the writings of one of our top Constitutional authorities of our day, Leo Donofrio.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

            Black’s Law Dictionary (most widely used law dictionary in the US) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”. It says nothing about parents.

            • sDee

              A book, I am sure, well treasured by Constitutional scholars like Obama, Sotomayor and Kagel

              Law schools do not even teach the Constitution nor the Founder’s intent. They teach the opposite. They teach Constitutional case Law.

              The legal academics and elitists are the primary assailants on the Constitution.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

                The Constitution is very clear that non-citizens and naturalized citizens are disqualified from being President. The debate is who is a natural-born-citizen, we can argue all day but at the end of the day the only way this gets resolved is in a court.

                • smrstrauss

                  It HAS been resolved in court. The US Supreme Court defined Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case, and nine appeals courts have all ruled that Obama is a NBC (and one ruled that McCain is a NBC) due to the US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, and on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those cases, the Farrar case in Georgia, leaving the ruling of the lower level court (and the other nine) standing.

            • Nukeman60

              Black’s Law Dictionary also changed their use of ‘unalienable rights’ (as late as the 2nd edition) to ‘inalienable rights’ (in all subsequent editions). Doesn’t change the original intent of the founding fathers. It just means our courts today are attempting to change the Constitution.

              http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

              • smrstrauss

                The meaning of Natural Born citizen as coming from the common law is confirmed by the use of the term in America at about the time that the Constitution was written. Here are two examples:

                “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

                “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

                Black’s Law Dictionary and the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark (in 1898) and the ten appeals courts are all simply saying what the Americans at the time of the writing of the Constitution knew, that NBC refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.

                • Nukeman60

                  You can keep yammering the same two points all you want. You aren’t going to convince anyone here.

                  But…but…they didn’t tell me!!! and Blackstone is the authority on the English Common law, so we must be natural born subjects.

                  I already told you – repeating yourself over and over again from the WikiPedia page is boorish.

                • smrstrauss

                  Subjects and citizens are profoundly different, I agree. But they both pull their pants on one leg at a time, don’t they? And that means, of course, that they are not different in every way. So, the question is are they different in the Natural Born requirement?

                  As we know, Natural Born subject had NO parent requirement. Every child born in the country except for those of foreign diplomats was a Natural Born Subject. So, if Natural Born Citizens require two citizen parents, then the writers of the US Constitution must have switched the parent requirement from none to two—–WITHOUT TELLING US.

                  If they ever had said “Natural Born Citizen as in Vattel,” or “two citizen parents”—-that would be entirely different, but they never said any such thing. And, in fact, the Tucker and Rawle quotations show that the American writers at the time knew that the term Natural Born Citizen came from the common law, and there had been no switch from none to two (or even to one) in the Natural Born requirement.

                • Nukeman60

                  ‘But they both pull their pants on one leg at a time, don’t they?’ – smr

                  How do you know? – THEY NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

                  Natural Born Subject and Natural Born Citizen were nowhere near the same thing to the founding fathers. A natural born subject was deemed a lesser of the King by England, whereas, a natural born citizen was a greater of the country. The King ruled the subjects while the citizens ruled the state. The founders wanted that to be paramount.

                  There was no switch from none to two, because the two were not the same, therefore there was no need for a switch (you imply the switch as a premise and then declare yourself to be right because there was a switch – very disingenuous of you). The foundering fathers were all born in this country, but gave themselves a grandfather clause to be President, since even though they were born here, they did not have citizen parents. ven though there is further proof, it is as simple as that.

                  And you need to stop using the Wong Kim Ark ruling as justification for the definition for NBC, as you imply that the Part III you quote from Justice Gray is implying that we remained natural born subjects after the Constitution. That, of course is flat out false, and you know it (or at least WikiPedia knows it, since you only copy their page).

                  Learn what a Supreme Court ruling is, btw. Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a citizen. That is what that case was all about. Side comments by any of the individual Justices is not a ruling and the one you quote doesn’t add up, as it is (there are majority opinions, dissent opinions, and side opinions of individual Justices).

                  Not stop bothering me with the same old rhetoric you keep passing on post after post after post. You need to read the Comments policy, it appears. There is a rule against spamming posts over and over and over again.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “Natural Born Subject and Natural Born Citizen were nowhere near the same thing to the founding fathers. ‘

                  In fact there are laws in the early US states before the Constitution that refer to “subjects” of the state.

                  More importantly, the fact that subjects and citizens are different is not the issue. The issue is whether citizens require more citizen parents to be Natural Born Citizens than subjects do to be Natural Born Subjects.

                  Subjects did not require any citizen parents to be Natural Born Subjects. YOU claim that citizens require two citizen parents to be Natural Born Citizens.

                  IF the writers of the constitution had intended to make that change, surely they would have told us. Well they didn’t.

                  YOU say that there was no switch, that NB citizens always required two citizen parents and NB subjects never did. But the ONLY source for that is Vattel, and there is no evidence that they used his definition and not that of the common law. So you are saying that they switched the parent requirements from none to two merely because you think that they used Vattel. But Vattel’s book did not even have the words Natural Born Citizen in English until 10 years after the Constitution while Natural Born had been used in the common law for 300 years.

                  Sure, they could have translated Vattel’s French word “indigines” as Natural Born Citizen, but if they had done that and used that translation, they would surely have told us.

                  And the evidence of the Tucker and Rawle quotations are that they DID NOT use the Vattel definition because Tucker and Rawle use the common law definition.

                  The US Supreme Court was right in the Wong Kim Ark case, and so were the 10 appeals courts, and Meese and Hatch and Graham and Black’s Law Dictionary, and you are wrong.

                • Nukeman60

                  As dense as you appear to be (and I assume it’s from reading only the Wiki page and it’s references), I do have to agree with you that the Supreme Court was right in the Wong Kim Ark case. They ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. What you keep quoting is a personal opinion of one of the Justices – and you don’t get that right either. If you read further in the case opinions (I assume you read the whole case, right, and not just the quote given to you?), one of the other Justices quotes Vattel on the natural born citizen case. Would you call that their ruling as well?

                  Oh, wait. Don’t answer that. I don’t really want to hear you tell me again about Blackstone and the fact that they DIDN’T TELL YOU ABOUT IT.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: ” one of the other Justices quotes Vattel on the natural born citizen case. Would you call that their ruling as well? ‘

                  Answer: Here is a link to the Wong Kim Ark ruling:

                  _http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html)

                  As you can see there is the opinion of the court and the dissent. Vattel is quoted only in the dissent, and the dissent is the side that LOST. Two justices formed the dissent, and they may have believed that Vattel was relevant, but they were not as many as the six justices that voted for the RULING of the court, which included the statement that the term Natural Born Citizen came from THE COMMON LAW (as the Tucker and Rawle historic quotes confirm) and that refers to the place of birth (ditton) and that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen.

                  On October 1 of last year the US Supreme Court turned down one of ten appeals court rulings that had held that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats. That means that the rulings of the lower courts stand.

                • Nukeman60

                  Why am I not surprised your links are “404 errors” and “page not found”. I’ve read the case (you should have ascertained that from my comments).

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “Oh, wait. Don’t answer that. I don’t really want to hear you tell me again about Blackstone and the fact that they DIDN’T TELL YOU ABOUT IT. ‘
                  Answer: I do not post for you alone but for any rational person who may be visiting this site and seeking the facts and the law. The facts are that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen does not come from the Swiss philosopher Vattel (who recommended several things not used in the US Constitution, including a state religion and who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers). The meaning comes from the common law, where Natural Born had been used for some 300 years before the US Constitution to refer to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth and not to the citizenship of two, or even one parent. In addition to historic research showing that that is the way that Americans (not Swiss) used the term Natural born Citizen at the time that the Constitution is written, that is also what the US Supreme Court says that it means in its ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. And the fact that the US Supreme Court did rule that way and that it said that everyone born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats is confirmed by ten appeals courts, and not one has ever ruled that two citizen parents (or even one) is required to be a Natural Born US Citizen, and no US Supreme Court ruling ever said that either.

                • smrstrauss

                  Re: “Learn what a Supreme Court ruling is, btw. Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a citizen. That is what that case was all about. Side comments by any of the individual Justices is not a ruling and the one you quote doesn’t add up, as it is (there are majority opinions, dissent opinions, and side opinions of individual Justices).”

                  Answer: In the Wong Kim Ark case, there was only the ruling of the court (six justices) and the dissenting opinion (two justices). There was no side opinion, and all six of the justices joined with justice Gray in his opinion that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. That was part of the ruling, and it has now been cited as the key ruling in TEN appeals court cases, and not one single one of the appeals court rulings ever said that the Minor v. Happersett case was the key ruling or that two citizen parents are required. And, to make the matter definitive, on October 1 the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten court rulings, which had said that the Wong Kim Ark case did rule on the matter, and that it said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and by turning down the appeal of that ruling, the US Supreme Court allowed its judgement, and that of the other nine courts, to stand.

          • smrstrauss

            I agree that the meaning of Natural Born citizen was well understood. It comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, and that is the way that the Americans at the time used the term. There are several examples of them using Natural Born citizen to refer to the place of birth, as the common law said, and no examples of them using the term to refer to parents.

        • smrstrauss

          NO, that is the fact, not the problem. Since the Constitution does not specifically require US citizen parents, they are not required. If you would like to change that, contact your congressman and senators and ask them to pass a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. But currently because the Constitution did not say “two citizen parents are required” (or even one) and because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the common law refers to the PLACE of birth, US citizen parents are not required.

      • Wisewoman2

        What if the mother conceived the child by artificial insemination and don’t know who the donor is? Is the child a US citizen? Can the child be president?

        • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

          Not sure, but I do believe that even though the donor’s name is kept secret, certain thigs about the donor, such as nationality and age, are available to the recipient.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      Your last statement where is that found?

      • sDee

        A thousand years of Nationality law used by the Founders. Only “modern” history has obscured it.

        However it is really easy to figure out. One need only ponder intent of the Founders putting the NBC requirement in the Constitution, and why they also included a one-generation exception to the NBC requirement.

        If you take a bit of time on those two things – much more will become clear.

        We are under attack – America’s sovereignty and Constitution are at stake. Now is no time to keep trusting those who intend to rule us.

        • Conservative_Hippie

          sDee I am trying to remove my opinion from this argument which is pretty much the same as yours, becuase my opinion is just that, my opinion. The SCOTUS needs to rule on the intent of Natural Born Citizen Clause and until then all we are arguing is our opinions.

      • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

        vattel

        • stage9

          What he ^ said.

        • Conservative_Hippie

          That’s fine, but until the SCOTUS rules, we are fighting an uphill battle.

          • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

            I’m not fighting it, its pretty simple.
            only people that want to find ways around it find it complicated.
            my morals don’t slide for any candidate.

            • Conservative_Hippie

              “my morals don’t slide for any candidate” -nor mine.

              • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

                I just realized the way I phrased that may have implied I was saying yours did, that was unintentional and I apologize.

                • Conservative_Hippie

                  No apology needed friend. I took no offense. I was just agreeing with you :-)

                • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

                  :)
                  I thought maybe that was the case but wanted to make sure just in case
                  :)

          • demographicallychallenged

            Until the interpretation is challenged the SCOTUS won’t rule.

            • Conservative_Hippie

              Unfortunately that appears to be the case (pun not intended :-) ).

      • stage9

        Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

        § 212. Of the citizens and natives.

        “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

        • macwell

          People don’t speak like that any longer, why?

          • stage9

            Because we’re illiterate? UNeducated by a teachers union mafia? we’re stupefied from gorging on the imbecility coming out of hollywood for far too long rather than engaging our minds?

        • Conservative_Hippie

          Again, this argument which is a good argument and I agree with your premise, but the NBC clause still needs to be brought before the SCOTUS and ruled on it’s intent, because as it sits it is too vague to be dogmatic.

        • smrstrauss

          The words “Natural Born Citizen” do not appear in any translation of Vattel’s book until ten years after the Constitution was written, and he is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and the examples of Tucker and Rawle show that the Americans at the time knew that the meaning of Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen came from the common law and referred to the place of birth—not to the parents of a US-born citizen.

  • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

    Call me a birther or whatever you want, but being a Native Born Citizen is completely different than being a Natural Born Citizen.

    You don’t only have to be a US Citizen at birth and born on US soil to be eligible to become a US President. Both of your parents need to be US Citizen themselves at the time of your birth.

    I just can’t understand why it’s so difficult to understand, especially when you see the usurper in chief as the perfect example of someone who grew up hating everything about this country (especially because his dad wasn’t a US Citizen).

    The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is to limit the risk of having someone who has allegiance to any other country because of his/her parents not being US Citizen to become President.

    “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”.

    Ask yourself this: why would the Founding Fathers write “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” ?

    The reason is because they never were Natural Born Citizens, a status that you only get when you are born and not at any other time. So the only way any of them should be eligible is to include themselves. Therefore they did by writing what I just quoted. Any US Citizen AT THE TIME of the adoption of this Constitution, and only at THAT TIME, would have been eligible to become President.

    It saddens me for Ted Cruz, but if you want to follow the Constitution then Ted Cruz is not eligible.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      I agree. Even if that means my son wouldn’t be able to run for POTUS some day if he chose to.

    • sDee

      Not only is there a difference between the two, the principles go back a millennium or more to protect against usurpation. That difference is precisely why the Founders specified Natural Born Citizen only for the office of President – an office most considered too dangerous to not limit and too easily usurped by foreign interests.

      Enter stage left – Barrack Hussein Obama. A man born to an islamic anti-colonialist Kenyan father and raised by an islamic stepfather in anti-American Indonesia.

      • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

        Exactly! I just don’t understand why it is so hard to comprehend for a lot of people.

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        Natual born citizen is not JUST requiard for POTUS, but aso for VP…13th ammendment if I remember correctly.

        • sDee

          correct – and by extension since the VP can ascend to the Presidency without a vote, he/she too must meet the NBC requirement

        • kssturgis62

          Since the Speaker of the House is 3rd in Line to the Presidency if the VP and the POTUS something happens to them, who is making sure the Speaker is a NBC???

      • UnCL3

        …and raised by communist grand parents and mother.

    • sDee

      I call you a principled patriot.

      • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

        Thank you, but you can’t call me that. I’m not even a US Citizen yet (I’m a permanent resident, so I at least I’m here LEGALLY). ;)

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          I’ll call you that too, because I’ve been called that by great patriots and we love America. :-)

          • macwell

            Don’t either one of you apologize, I’ve read more American spirit from you two than the entire staff of Huf-Poo.

            • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

              Thank you so much! :-D

            • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

              Thank you macwell!

    • PVG

      If we were following the Constitution, we would not have BO in the WH! Pun intended!!!

  • marketcomp

    Does anyone find it interesting how these people, including those at FOX news, were so scared to investigate Obama’s birth but so quick to investigate Ted Cruz? When we know he was just born in Canada, not a citizen of Canada? America is the only country with that stupid law to just be born here and you get citizenship! Moreover, is there any doubt how fearless Ted Cruz is and the fact that there really was no opposition to Obama until the last 2 months. I mean there is a case to be made that Sen. Cruz provided some very need reinforcements to Conservative Republicans. Additionally, he is well versed in Conservatism and specifically the Ronald Reagan conservatism which is just awesome. Even Obama compares himself to Ronald Reagan because that is the winning strategy. But the RINOs run away from Reagan every chance they get, including to some extent Bill Bennett. Bill Bennett is a critical anchor for Paul Ryan and Ryan has been a huge dissapointment to most of us has Conservatives.

  • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

    Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    • stage9

      I would say that precludes Canada.

      • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

        It might, but in the case of Ted Cruz his dad wasn’t a US Citizen at birth…

        “What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.”

        http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

        • OneThinDime

          Neither was Marco Rubio’s

          • marketcomp

            If I am not mistaken neither of Rubios parents were born in the US, right? But, Marco was born a US citizen. I think its an even more difficult position to say that he doesn’t qualify because he was born in the US.

            • OneThinDime

              Natural born requires at least one parent to have been born and living in the US. I think sDee had a previous post with the requirements.

            • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

              Natural born citizen requires birth on US soil, PLUS birth to 2 US citizen parents. Rubio was born here and is a native born citizen (anchor baby), but his parents were born in Cuba and were Cuban citizens, and did not naturalize until he was 4 years old, so he was NOT born to citizen parents. NOT a natural born citizen.

          • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

            Neither was Obama’s… AND his mother was not of legal age, which was 21 at the time.

            • smrstrauss

              Since Obama was born on US soil, in Hawaii (as proven by his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the index data and t he birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961) neither the citizenship of his father nor the age of his mother has the slightest effect on his Natural Born Citizen status.

              And, no, Obama’s birth certificate was not forged. Only birther “experts” claim it, and they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial, and those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or the National Review or Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Huckabee.

            • OneThinDime

              Well if you’ve been following the eligibility lawsuit you will see the SCOTUS staff “lost” several of the briefs so the case was not heard.

              • smrstrauss

                Birthers continue to have their dreams. Orly, a birther lawyer, has claimed that the Supreme Court clerks lost her documents. Maybe the dog ate her homework as well.

                • OneThinDime

                  So happy to identify another ObamaBot. I hope you are enjoying the rising gas prices, the food shortages and cannot wait to see your health insurance premium and ObamaTaxes

                • smrstrauss

                  The facts that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth exist independent of whether I like Obama or dislike him, or you dislike him or like him. They are simply the facts. And they are true regardless of the gas prices or the health insurance premium.

        • marketcomp

          Neither was Obama’s father a citizen at birth and had no intentions on being a citzen! Sen. Cruz was just born there and that does not mean being a citizen. The US is the only country with an anchor baby defacto rule and all of you who by into this crap are helping those who want to take out our leaders. Are you really saying that if a US citizen is pergnant and on vacation in say Kenya or working for a short time or doing research here then that baby is Kenyan? That pregnant woman has not pledged alligance to Kenya and does not even have a dual citizenship. So the real question is why are all of you playing into the hands of the people who don’t want a strong Conservative?

          • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

            You are confused. I never said that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio aren’t US Citizen. I know they both are US Citizen.

            However we’re not talking about US Citizenship here. We are talking about being eligible to become US President.

            To become a US President you have to be a Natural Born Citizen, and not just a US Citizen (whether native born or naturalized).

            It has nothing to do with having a strong Conservative to become President. It has everything to do to respect and understand the Constitution. Does it matter to you? It does to me.

            • marketcomp

              You are still missing something. Sen. Cruz’s mother just worked in Canada and happens to be pregnant when she worked there and gave birth to the baby on Canadian soil. That does not mean that the baby is a Canadian citizen because the mother is natural born and the father pledged alligance to the US as a citizen. So just because someone is working or vacationing in another country does not make the baby a citizen of the country that the baby was born in/ America is the ony country stuck on this anchor baby crap and no other country adheres to the anchor baby defacto law.

              • sDee

                No one is claiming Cruz is Canadian. He is a Native born US citizen. He is not a Natural born US citizen by the very fact that he was not born on US soil to two US citizens..

                His mothers situation makes Cruz a Native citizen eligible for any and all ofcces and positons in the Untied States Government except President.

                The Constitution did not provide a litany of situations to distinguish between a person on vacation in a foreign county vs one who intent undermining our sovereignty.

                The Founders but the NBC clause in the Constitution for a reason. They only applied it to the Office of President for a reason. Understanding the reasoning makes it all clear.

                • stage9

                  I think your view is how I’ve always understood it too. It’s only in recent years, with the advent of his highness the mahdi, that I’ve run into all of these other interpretations.

                • sDee

                  Because first they removed the Constitution and Bill of Rights form our schools, then they taught us us the Founders were a bunch of stupid while bigots/racists, then they taught us we are evil imperialists who got what we have by stealing it form other countries.

                  Now they and a pop-media write all the new rules.

                • macwell

                  Hence sDee, the real problem. Until we the people retake control of OUR children’s schools and education, we cannot fix America.

                • marketcomp

                  Ok why are you splitting hairs here. Both of his parents were US citizens one natural born and the other not, his father, and they both pledge allegiance to the US which is clearly stated in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

                • sDee

                  Standing of principle and intent is not splitting hairs.

                • smrstrauss

                  Birth on US soil is sufficient for Natural Born Citizen status, since the term comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

                  “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

              • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a US citizen mother and a Cuba citizen father. Two strikes against him for POTUS or VP. He was NOT born on US soil, and he was NOT born to 2 US citizen parents. However he IS a US citizen by way of his mother. He is also NOT a native born citizen, which requires being born on US soil, but does not require citizen parents. The nbc requirement is for BOTH President and Vice-President.

                • marketcomp

                  His mother was born in Delaware. She did not give up her citizenship just because she worked in Canada. You need to do more research! Ted Cruz was not an anchor baby, Diana Forthe Constitution. Moreover, his father, acquired political asylum from Cuba, but was also a US citizen living in Texas while working in Canada. Both were US citizens.

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  I never said Cruz was an anchor baby – that is Rubio. No one said Cruz’s mother gave up her citizenship – she is the reason Cruz is a US citizen. Cruz’s father was still a Cuban citizen when Ted was born. His father did not become a citizen until much later. Research it.

                • marketcomp

                  I would note that your earlier post has indeed changed, Diana Forthe Constitution. So I have posted this artical for you for furhter clarification.

                  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Yes-Ted-Cruz-Likely-Eligible-to-be-President

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  My earlier post has changed???
                  Oh, do you mean where I clarified my earlier post by breaking it down to be more understandable? That did not change the meaning of anything from one post to the next.

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  Breitbart is turning over in his grave from what Pollock and other are doing to his site. He would have stood up for the Constitution instead of giving in to the lies.

                • marketcomp

                  Consensus: Look I don’t really care what you or anyone else think about this, he is eligible.
                  As Ben Shapiro said in his book, we are always trying to take the moral high ground and we are losing! I am tired of losing. Breitbart is not the only one saying this-So are you ahamed of Fox too.

                  http://nation.foxnews.com/sen-ted-cruz/2013/03/11/spokesman-senator-cruz-us-citizen-birth

        • stage9

          I think all of this debate is a result of the muckety muck “interpretations” that have cropped up as a result of this question over the years. I have serious doubts as to whether the current belief that one parent is all that is necessary for qualification to be President, is the correct interpretation.

          I don’t know. It makes my head hurt.

          • sDee

            It was not the Founders intent. Theirs was crystal clear. In fact their intent was to protect our sovereignty from the designs of the people pushing this crap today.

            The intent behind the deception of the globalists in our government and media is also quite clear.

            • stage9

              I agree. I think we make this more difficult than it is because we have some within our government who would benefit from the confusion, ie, his hindness the great, Barack Insane Obama.

          • OneThinDime

            I can see the SCOTUS ruling on one parent, otherwise only children of parents married at the time of birth would qualify.

    • marketcomp

      If you are working out of country, as Ted Cruz’s mother was, and happens to give birth in that country where you are working does not meant that the bably is a citizen of the country where he was born! That is just stupid! We have diplomats that who give birth all the time in the US but that does not mean that the baby is a US citizen. Moreover, the 14th amendment says that the parents must have NO allegiance to another country and it is obvious that his mother did not pledge allegiance to become a Canadian and was a US citizen. The 14th amendment says, “Everyone (including former slaves) born or naturalized in the U.S. is a citizen of the country, as well as the state they live in.” Moreover his father was a Cuban refugee who pledge allegiance to the US as a citizen.

  • Amjean

    Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, our conservative heroes. I would like Rand Paul
    as the presidential choice because he has “cojones” which one needs to
    defend against the leftie progressive marxists. However, I also like
    Ted Cruz because of his experience and command of the facts.
    They both have a calm demeanor while stating facts which I just love.
    No doublespeak from either of them.

    Either way it shakes out is fine with me, as long as it is one of them.

    • OneThinDime

      You want Rand Paul because you are a libtarian. Ted Cruz can run circles around anyone else in Congress, is extremely intelligent, well spoken, Constitutional attorney and has won tough cases before the SCOTUS including the Heller and Meining case.

  • PicklePlants

    I believe the citizenship argument is moot because of the precedent set by the President.

    If conservatives continue to shoot themselves in the foot, very soon they won’t have a leg to stand on.

    • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

      By your logic, if a thief breaks into your house and steals from you, but gets away with it, now it is OK for anyone else to also break into your house and steal from you.
      Or is it now OK for you to break into someone else’s house and steal from them.

    • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

      so once a law is broken once with no repercussions it ok to break it repeatedly.
      nice…..

    • OneThinDime

      There is no precedent until the Court of Appeals or SCOTUS interprets the Federal law. Actions do not establish precedent, the courts do.

    • sDee

      So because Chicago has law that bans guns or NY has laws that ban magazines, or Clinton passed “assault” rifle laws, we should all just give up on the Second Amendment based on precedent?

      The UN globalist love it. Literally, with this reasoning anyone born anywhere to anyone so long as one person manged to become naturalized, they can be president.

      Do you know now that the US now is giving citizenship to anyone who puts a million or so into a US investment? Many US banks specialize in this.

      Between Obama’s, McCain’s Rubio’s and now Cruz’s combined precedents….a Communist Party whore from North Korea with a few hundred grand can buy her citizenship, get knocked up by Vladimir Putin, give birth in Ottawa, and their kid is eligible for President of the Untied States.

      Can anyone defending Cruz’s, McCain’s and Rubio’s eligibility, please tell me what would prevent that scenario?

      We are a mockery to the Founders in our ignorance.

      • macwell

        Wow sDee, the smarter you are, the older I get.

  • proudhispanicconservative

    It is so refreshing to hear a confident conservative, For so long we “conservatives” have been longing, and thirsting for someone to come in and change the conversartion, and put conservatism back in the forefront. As far as his eligibility to become president, we have a communist, and someone that we dont really know where he was born, so yes in my view he is eligible.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    It’s interesting, Cruz who was born in Canada but his mother is an American. Rubio, who was born in US, but didn’t have American parents at the time of his birth. Supposedly under those two scenarios they still fit the criteria for natural born citizen by some constitutional scholars. I think Cruz probably does qualify, if one parent is enough to be a natural born citizen being born outside the US. — For Rubio, there probably should be a ruling for his case. Is a natural born citizen someone who is born in US but parents aren’t US citizens at the time? There could be an argument if you are born here you are a natural born citizen even though your parent aren’t citizens, however that precedent in the future might be risky, let’s say a liberal born in the US, raised here for his/her entire life but parents were/are citizens of Venezuela or Russia.. It would be hard pill to swallow.

    • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

      It is very easy to understand. Let’s not complicate it. Were you born to US citizen parentS and born on US soil? If you can answer yes to BOTH questions then you are a Natural Born Citizen. If you cannot, then you are not. There seems to be a c oncerted effort to equate citizen, or even native born citizen, with natural born citizen. These terms are not interchangeable. Each has a different meaning and clasification, as per numerous SCOTUS cases.
      And no, the 14th ammendment is not about natural born citizen at all, but only about “citizen”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        That’s your definition of a natural born but that doesn’t mean you’ve won the argument.. there is another argument.

        In the U.S., native born is a subset of natural born. All native borns are natural born but not all all natural borns are native born. Anyone born in the U.S. (save for children born to foreign diplomats or to foreign armed service members) are native born, and consequently natural born.

        As native born requires being born within the country, in this case the U.S., a child born to citizen parents abroad is still natural born, but not native born.

        Basically as it stands right now, only non-citizens and naturalized citizens are disqualified to be president. Until a court rules on what exactly is natural born citizens it’s just the way it is..

        • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

          Actually, native born, naturalized, and natural born are all subsets of “citizen”.

          The above poster has it backwards. All Natural born (since that requires being born on the soil plus having citizen parents) are also native born (born on the soil). But not all native born (which only requires born on the soil) are natural born (which requires BOTH born on the soil and citizen parents).

          A child born to citizen parents abroad is still a citizen, but is NEITHER native born or natural born (because BOTH terms require birth on US soil).

    • OneThinDime

      Rubio is not qualified to be president, he was not born to US parents.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        He was born here.. some say that’s enough to qualify for natural born..

        • OneThinDime

          The little Rubio worshipers do but the courts DO NOT! Rubio is Jeb Bush’s front man. Do you think Bush-boy would want Rubio out there if he would be running against him?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

            I could be wrong, but I would bet money on the court affirming that Rubio and Cruz are eligible for President of the United States.

            • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

              With the corrupt courts we have now, I would not be surprised if you won that bet.

  • sDee

    By this logic, the daughter of Ahmadinejad, could come to the US, become a US citizen, go to Venezuela, become impregnated by Hugo Chavez, and Hugo Junior would be eligible for President of the United States.

    Think about it folks. And think really hard about what the Founders put in Article 2, Section 1 to prevent it.

    The globalists are attacking America on every front. Global to Local. We do not ignore the Constitution because we think our guy is cool.

  • http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/ Libertyship46

    There is hope if Cruz can run for president one day. There is hope.

    • sDee

      Other than Reagn there has not been a US president in my recollection going back to EIsenhower) who was not growing Federal Power and undermining the Constitution.

      The senate used to provide the States a fall back defense line until another globalist US President took that away from US with the 17th Amendment. The House is our last glimmer of hope defending the Republic.

      Cruz can do America great good in the Senate. If ignoring the US Constitution’s intent for eligibility is his starting point fo rht Presidency, we are all screwed.

      • OneThinDime

        Well Reagan couldn’t possibly have not grown federal power with his 1986 illegal alien amnesty, that all had to be done at the federal level.

      • PicklePlants

        Reagan actually grew the budget (Federal Power), but also lowered taxes. The net effect was a reduction in the deficit because tax revenue increased more than the increase in spending

  • jrt1031

    A pineapple should have been able to beat Obama but now that his party has its illegal system in place I guess they are above the law and since the right party is about following the law we are screwed. But the truth does always at some point come to surface. Unfortunately things will get quite heated by that point and things will blow.

  • http://twitter.com/uncmetsgal Carmen P

    When I was in school, this issue actually came up, and my circumstances were actually used as an example.

    My mother is a US citizen. She was born in NYC. My father was born in Italy, and until 2005, was an Italian citizen holding a US Green Card. (he has since become a US citizen)

    I was born in Italy, because my mother married my father and they decided to live there for a while before ultimately moving to NY in 1978 (I was born in ’77).

    So, my teacher said, based on HIS understanding, I would NOT be eligible for the presidency, even though I was born with US citizenship by virtue of my mother’s citizenship.

    I have believed this ever since, but a few people have told me that my teacher (and I) are wrong. That the federal code cleared up the “natural born” issue and so I, like Obama, by virtue of our mother’s citizenship, would be eligible.

    I still wholeheartedly disagree!! Even though I disqualify myself in the process! ;)

    • stage9

      Does paternity fall on the father or mother? if it falls on the father as is common in law (that’s why you have your father’s last name) then the father’s status should be the determining factor I would think.

    • sDee

      Your teacher was correct.

      There was a time students were taught to defend our Constitution.

      Now they are taught to be “global citizens”. It appears by his silence that the Byron York and the good Senator Cruz were taught well.

      • stage9

        I’m erring on the side of caution and agreeing with you two.

        And it pains me, because I would like nothing MORE than for Mr Cruz to be President, but principle constrains me.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      Do you remember what yourr teacher used as his source to make his judgement or was it just his opinion?

      • http://twitter.com/uncmetsgal Carmen P

        This is going back a few years, and if he cited anything specific, I don’t remember it.

        That said, I do remember the circumstances, because he was pleased to be able to use an actual person (me) to make his point.

        The only thing I seem to recall is that he said “Based on this (or maybe “my”) understanding, Carmen would be ineligible… “

        • Conservative_Hippie

          Fair enough.

      • sDee

        It is the law and the intent. It was always this way until the f’in Prgressives took over our education system and rewrite fo history.

        If Cruz is eligible for president -who is not? And why do nearly all nations have such an NBC clause?

        • Conservative_Hippie

          If I’m correct the natural born clause “intent” issue has not be resolved in the courts? I’m hoping that someday the SCOTUS will rule on the clause and thereby settle many of these arguements we are having.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      A Congressional Research Service report tried to define what a natural born citizen is and this what they said:

      “In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ and are ‘natural born,’ as opposed to ‘naturalized,’ U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        It has been proven that the CRS was written as a skewed document in order to provide cover for Obama. If you like, I will try to find the citation for that.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          You know the Constitution could have made this real easy, just define a natural born citizen as someone who’s parents are US Citizens like you said, but it DOESN’T.

          • sDee

            And the Constitution could have made it really easy and defined what arms were. But every one knew what arms were and their intent in those words was crystal clear.

            Same with Article 2 Section 1.

            The Constitution was brilliant, short, brief, targeted – the words selected very carefully and based on centuries of history and law. Natural Born was a common definition at that time. Volumes had been written on sovereignty.

            American schools teach none this.

            Leo Donofrio spent years documenting all of this on his Natural Born Citizen blog.

            Ask instead why the Founders did not make NBC a requiremtn of other Federal offices. Sloppy? I think not. Ask why the Founders necessarily had to exempt their generator from the NBC clause it – one time only?

            • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

              American schools USED TO teach this. Basic Civics and American History.

          • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

            It doesn’t, but it gives you a clue…

            “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;…”

            Now focus on the “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” part. To be President you have to be a Natural Born Citizen, OR you had to be a US Citizen at the time of the writing of the Constitution (which was when the Founding Fathers included themselves to be eligible because they were US Citizen but not Natural Born Citizen since the Founding Fathers parents were not US Citizen at the time of their birth for a very obvious reason). It’s right there in the Constitution. So tell me why do the Founding Fathers make a distinction? You can’t explain it other than what I just explained to you.

            This is purely and simply common sense.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

              the distinction is that not everyone can become a natural born citizen of US.. It’s used as a check for outside influence who would want to rule America but can’t… Legal scholars widely consider that anyone born in the united states is in fact a natural born citizen, and US has determined that to be so.

              • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

                Being a Natural Born Citizen is a privilege and not a right. You can only become a Natural Born Citizen once in your lifetime: at birth if your parents are both US Citizen. This is to limit someone who has allegiance to any other country. What you describe is Native-born Citizen.

                Ask yourself this question again: Why did the Founding Fathers included themselves in the requirement by writing “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”? Why they didn’t just write “No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

                  Where you are born is a birthright.

                • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

                  … and so is being a Natural Born Citizen when parents are both US Citizen at the time of their child’s birth.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

                  That’s your opinion.. And Obama being president pretty much destroys that argument.

                • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

                  How does it destroy my argument? I think that you have the perfect example of why it is important to have someone who didn’t have allegiance to other countries which at the same time is makes him so anti-American. It is not a guarantee that a Natural Born Citizen would be perfect in that sense, but heck it would reduce the chances to have someone like 0bama as president.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

                  @Zeeshopper because what you said makes a natural born citizen doesn’t exist here in the United States today because of Obama. He only has his mother who is a Citizen. So Cruz fits under those same rules, now with Rubio maybe he doesn’t because perhaps you do need at least one parent who is a US citizen to be natural born, Rubio only has that he’s a native born, is that enough? Some scholars think it is but I’m not sure I would like there to be a case about that and define it once and for all..

            • Conservative_Hippie

              It may be common sense, but until the issue is brought up at the SCOTUS level and clarified it will remain as a “he said, she said” type argument.

          • Conservative_Hippie

            Agreed!

      • sDee

        Was probably written by a Soros think tank to defend Hussein’s ineligibility.

        GO to the INTENT!

    • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

      my father also not qualified, mother was canadian citizen.
      I refuse to take the easy way out on NBC also.
      so I am called all sorts of names.

    • OneThinDime

      The Federal Code would not clear up the interpretation, that is done through case law decisions by the Appellate and Supreme Court (they interpret the laws)

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        Exactly. And even though Sectin 8 of the Federal Code is often quoted to support a definition of natural born citizen, if you read it you will see that it is only about who can be a “citizen”. Nothing about natural born citizen, which happens at birth and not through legislation.

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        Here you go, the Code:
        USC › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401
        PREVNEXT
        8 USC § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

        USC-prelim
        US Code
        Notes
        Updates
        Authorities (CFR)

        USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version.

        Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

        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;
        (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
        (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
        (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
        (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
        (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
        (g) 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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
        (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
        (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
        (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

  • PVG

    Cruz missile!! Focused, calm, optimistic, and ELIGIBLE!!!
    Woo Hoo!!

    • marketcomp

      Yes he is, PVG! Refreshing and hopeful!

    • OneThinDime

      I’m waiting for Ted Cruz to complete his own analysis. He is a Constitutional attorney who has successfully argued before the SCOTUS. But like you, hope the answer is YES!

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        Cruz is avoiding the issue. See his recent interview on Hannity.

        • OneThinDime

          Someone from TX posted that he is privately researching the issue.

  • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

    Federal Code only spreaks of who can be a citizen, and nothing about natural born citizen, a condition of birth and not one that can be legistlated by any code. Your very wise teacher was correct.
    If you can answer yes to BOTH of these questions, you are a natural born citizen: 1) were you born on US soil? 2) Were you born to US citizen parentS? It is really very simple.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      Could you post the Federal code section?

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        Section 8 – deals with who can be classified as a citizen.

        • Conservative_Hippie

          Thank you, I’ll be happy to look at it.

  • jdbaird

    The establishment hates Ted Cruz, and would fight harder than they would against a liberal to keep him from getting elected, of course the establishment hated Reagan too and we see how that turned out, haha…I know people always bring this up, but Chester Arthur’s dad was a french (or irish I can’t remember) citizen and his mom was an American citizen, so that brings a little confusion into the mix.

  • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

    To Carmen P. below:
    The US Code only speaks of citizen, and nothing about natural born citizen. One cannot be made a nbc by code or law, it is a condition of birth. Your very wise teacher was correct, as are you.
    Only if you can answer YES to BOTH of these questions are you a natural born citizen:
    1) Were you born on US soil? 2) Were you born to US citizen parents? Simple…

  • Conservative_Hippie

    Until the SCOTUS rules on the meaning of “natural born citizen”, I say Cruz 2016!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Pretty much, the only way to stop Cruz would be the courts.

      • sDee

        NO the people could stop this just has we could have stopped OBama – theproblem is the peopel in America have been dumbed down.

        Present this Cruz scenario to any educated citizen of Japan, Switzerland Russia, hell even Saudi Arabia and they would be ROFLTAO to propose they let such a person be eligible for their highest office/seat.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          Sorry but you are wrong. The US courts have already set precedent that every person born within US, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. The only way to challenge Rubio or Cruz eligibility is to bring up the case in court.

          • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

            Please provide citations, Steven. Because I believe someone has given you oncorrect information. SCOTUS has repeatedly used “born on US soil to citizen parentS” as the definition.

            a

          • Conservative_Hippie

            As usual I agree!

          • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

            Here are some court cases

            In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court considered the status of children who are born in the United States, of fathers who owe allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States. In both cases, the Court ruled that such children are not even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.

            In 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……which the term parents is always used, plural btw.

            •In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel’s concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable, the viewpoint that: “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”.
            •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 or born from a foreigner.

            •In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. At the time of his birth, his father was a native-born American citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.

            •In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States. When she was born, her father was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage….When deciding her citizenship in was determined by her parents status as citizens as well that she was born on US soil.
            To this day, whenever a Supreme Court decision has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

            The United States has had 44 presidents (including Barack Obama). Of these 44 presidents, 34 were born after 1787 (the year the Constitution was adopted) and were therefore subject to the “natural born citizen” requirement. With only two exceptions, each of these 34 presidents was born in the United States, of parents who were both U.S. citizens (Citizenship Status of U.S. Presidents). The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. While running for office in 1880, Chester Arthur lied to journalists about his family history (and later burned nearly all of his family records), thereby concealing the fact that he was a British subject at birth (Historical Breakthrough – Chester Arthur).

          • Nukeman60

            The courts have mentioned natural born citizen in many cases where they ruled on other issues, but they have never explicitly defined or ruled on it. Most cases refer to Wong Kim Ark, Minor v Happersett, Lynch v Clark, or the 14th Amendment – all of which address the notion of “citizenship” and not specifically “natural born citizen”.

            I agree with you, though, that the Supreme Court needs to address the issue of the definition, which the left has fought tooth and nail to prevent.

      • Conservative_Hippie

        Agreed, and I wish this would happen so the NBC matter would get settled.

    • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

      SCOTUS already has, in numerous cases. Born on US soil to citizen parentS.

      • Conservative_Hippie

        I hope you are right! Can you provide sources?

        • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

          Absolutel;y. Will have to find them, but somewhere I have a whole link to them. Check back tomorrow, OK?

        • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

          This is not what I was looking for, but I think you will find it informative. It is a very comprehensive tutorial showing both sides of the nbc argument.
          http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.mags.net%2Ftonchen%2Fbirthers.htm%23ref06&h=sAQFwNIw7

        • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

          I just posted some for Steven Valdez, above. Again, not the whole long list I’m looking for to give to you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

    To Stage 9 below:
    If your parents are visiting a foreign country and you are born there, then you are a US citizen born abroad (some birth certificates even state this). Whether or not you are a dual citizen depends on the citizenship laws of the other country.

  • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

    If your parents are visiting a foreign country and you are born there, then you are a US citizen born abroad (some birth certificates even state this). Whether or not you are a dual citizen depends on the citizenship laws of the other country.

  • nonviolentrevolutionary

    All eligible US Presidents are US citizens but not all US citizens are eligible to be President. Both birth parents MUST possess U.S. passports at time of the child’s birth, and neither parent may possess any other country’s passports.

    The reason for this is simple; the Founders wanted to avoid a King/Queen foreign ruler. It was common for treaties to be made between countries, and a foreign”bride/groom” to be pledged in the making of said treaty — the person being “pledged” would owe allegiance to the USA but rather allegiance to a foreign country that he/she was from. The Natural Born Citizen requirement put the kabosh to this power grabbing scenario.

    Cruz is not eligible to President, but eligible to be Senator. McCain was eligible because both his parents were US passport bearing citizens at the time of his birth, regardless of him being born overseas.

    Rubio is not eligible to be Prez either, both his parents were Cuban passport holders at the time of his birth.

    Jindal is not eligible either, both his parents lacked U.S. passports at the time of his birth.

    • sDee

      You are right about the foreign alligneces. That was the real risk that warranted the NBC clause. You are not about the passports. To be eligible for President:
      – two citizen parents,
      – born on US soil,
      – 35 years old,
      – lived in the US for 14 years before running

      McCain was born on Panamanian soil in a private hospital. Ineligible.

      • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

        jus soli has exceptions for military, I forget which ruling now though.

      • nonviolentrevolutionary

        you don’t have to be born on US soil but you have to be IN the USA for 14 years previous to running. Parents absolutelly cannot have foreign passports at time of birth, that belies foreign allegiances. All of this is clear via ‘common law’ known and accepted at the time the Constitution was drafted and approved.

        http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

        • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

          British Common Law is not quoted or mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. However, Vattel’s Law of Nations IS – and was also known, studied, and widely accepted at the time of the signing.

          • nonviolentrevolutionary

            I didn’t say “British common law”, don’t put words in my word processor….

            “There are two United States Supreme Court decisions that show that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment or in any other part of the Constitution, but rather in the common law. The Supreme Court decided these cases after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. In the first case, the Court decided whether the person was a “natural-born citizen” and in the second one whether the person was a “citizen of the United States.”
            http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

            • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

              LOL, sorry about the words in your processor…. You know what they say about assuming… my error.
              If you are reading Apuzzo, you already KNOW the definition requires birth on US soil.

  • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

    AMEN!!!!

    • sDee

      Just what all the Progressives said when the House passed a resolution declaring McCain eleigble as they built a smokescreen to hide Hussein’s ineligibility.

      We foolishly cling to trust in these politicians and pundits. We are getting what we deserve in America – her demise.

      • OneThinDime

        I don’t believe we deserve the demise of America. Many have lost their lives fighting for these freedoms and millions more fight in the best way they can. We are seeing the young blood in the Senate and House rise up against the old guard. Rand Paul ignited millions with his filibuster.

  • proverbs2611

    I’m sure Senator Cruz is a great guy for the Tea Party movement. However, you know the left media will blow the whole Calgary thing out of proportion. Why is it so difficult to find someone to run for president who was born in the US, perhaps a military veteran, who hasn’t held public office in Washington? I don’t think we need anymore Congress people running for a while, IMO.

    • TimeForAnarchy

      I don’t care WHERE the next truly CONSERVATIVE candidate was born…….as long as he/she is EFFECTIVE, and is Constitutional.

      • sDee

        Then you will soon lose your country

        Every hear of Roger Calero? He is in the US Socialist Workers Party, a Nicaraguan citizen. Roger was on the general election ballot for US President in 2008 in some states. Along with McCain and Obama. http://defendourfreedoms.net/2008/11/11/hola-nj-did-you-ever-meet-njs-presdiential-candidate-roger-calero.aspx

        If we pick and chose to defend only the parts of the Constitution that suit us we will lose America because the NBC requirement is crucial to protect her sovereignty from foreign usurpation.- or worse globalist usurpation.

        Do you really think it is a big ole coinkydink that all three of those candidates were floated with major questions on their eligibility? Also Jindal, Rubio, and now Cruz?

        “Conservatives” are not always what they appear. Bush1 signed us up for the UN’s collectivist Agenda 21 in 1992 – just in time for Clinton to institute its globalist tentacles in every arm of the US government. Know thy enemy and thier tactics.

        • TimeForAnarchy

          An excellent post, indeed, sDee. But I thought I was clear about the next truly conservative candidate meeting our Constitutional requirements. Nothing less will be acceptable.

          And when I say Conservative, I rarely confuse that thinking style with GWB.

          • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

            Sorry, T for A, but you were not clear. You wrote that you did not care WHERE the candidate was born.

            • TimeForAnarchy

              My bad. I stand corrected.

        • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

          Don’t forget, Governor Nikki Haley. She ALSO was not born to citizen parents. Funny how all of her previously available bio on her birth circumstances has recently been scrubbed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        If he/she was not born here, then he/she is not a National born citizen, and thus is NOT Constitutionally eligible, no matter HOW EFFECTIVE he/she may be. The effect wil be to further nullify our founding document.

    • sDee

      Excellent question. The answer is not so hard to discover.

      It lies in the designs of global citizenry and global governance. It manifest itself in a corrupt politcal system where politicains are bought and sold, where the two parties are just two sides of the same coin.

  • sDee

    By all this fuzzy feel good logic Cruz could also run for Prime Minister of Canada.

    The Canadians however are not that stupid.

    • marketcomp

      But I don’t think Canada has that stupid and idiotic anchor baby decree. Only the US is that stupid to have that.

      • sDee

        Has nothing to do with anchor baby. Some here claim Cruz is eligible on the sole and singular requirement that his mother has citizenship papers. By the same logic, if his father has Canadian citizenship papers he is eligible as their PM.

        We may have shot ourselves in the foot with the anchor baby deception, so now lets shoot ourselves in the head with an Article 2 Section 1 deception.

        America’s sovereignty is under attack. This is how its done. An Constitutionally uneducated populous, manipulated by globalist pundits and a pop culture media.

        “Citizens of the globe unite. The fruits of America are our reward.”

        • marketcomp

          “Cruz was born in Canada, but his mother was a lifelong American, born in Delaware. (His father was a political refugee from Cuba.) So under federal law, Cruz was born an American citizen by virtue of his mother. His family moved back to Texas, where Cruz grew up, and lived his entire life except the years he spent in New Jersey attending Princeton, Massachusetts attending Harvard Law School, and Washington, D.C., clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court and later serving in the Bush administration. So this former Texas solicitor general was born an American citizen and has spent almost all his life in America—usually serving his state or nation.”

          http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Yes-Ted-Cruz-Likely-Eligible-to-be-President

          • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

            Good quote, marketcomp. Very telling is the statement that Cruz got his citizenship via his mother….hmmmm, no mention of his father. Maybe because his father was not yet a citizen and thus could not also convey citizenship.

  • wraith67

    For one, who gives a damn what Byron York thinks about anybody’s eligibility? And for two, well, certainly the Republicans didn’t say anything about Barry’s obviously fake BC, so why not run anybody they want…

    • sDee

      Why not? Because of the COnstitution.

      Because the eligibility rules are part of the US Constitution. This one, standard in all nations, was applied by the Founders only to the Office of President to protect against foreign usurpation. Case in point, Barack Hussein Obama who has transferred out trillions of our money, wealth, jobs and national security.

  • TimeForAnarchy

    This ought to scare the crap out of Olbermann & Maddow………

  • Conservator1

    I doubt Sen. Cruz will run for president in 2016 albeit if he did, I would support his candidacy. In his short time as a senator, Cruz has impressed me greatly. Heck, when McCain and Graham resort to taking cheap shots at Cruz, that alone is a great resume to enter the GOP presidential primaries.

    However if he doesn’t run, I believe he would be an excellent choice as the VP candidate. I will not forget his speech at the Republican convention. Cruz didn’t use teleprompters; he didn’t rely upon notes either and he delivered a great speech even without a podium on the stage.

    • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

      Rubio is an excellent speaker, too, and does not rely on telepromptors or notes. I guess if that is the penultimate reason for electing someone, why not support a Rubio/Cruz ticket? Two ineligibles at one blow!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/ObamaRelease-YourRecords/100000555737985 ObamaRelease YourRecords

    tsk, tsk, tsk…

    To claim someone born in a foreign country is somehow a “natural born Citizen” is complete and utter nonsense.

    Shame on you!

    Two wrongs don’t make a right!

    That fact of the matter: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/03/breitbart-news-wrongly-declares-cruz-eligible.html

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

    “Natural born” requires both parents to be citizens at the time of birth, which disqualifies Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. I’m disappointed about Cruz because he’s far more loyal and devoted to America than many natural born citizens.

    • sDee

      But that conservatism and loyalty will make him a great warrior and defender.

      It should also make him stand, declare himself ineligible. It would be a broadside on Obama and he would open a badly needed education of America on this dangerous precedence to our sovereignty.

  • HarrietHT2

    I’d like to see Senator Cruz as our next Attorney General; I do not believe he qualifies as a natural born citizen any more than does Obama. Cruz is a major talent, politically, and I very much doubt — if I read him aright, given his forceful defense of the Constitution — that he would conclude himself to be natural born. It would be a sad irony if he would permit presidential ambitions to override his heretofore exceptional orthodoxy on our founding documents.

    • sDee

      He does qualify for AG recording to the Constitution…..assuming his mother filled out the right paper work :)

      But then again if he is a constitutional conservative and he is experienced in the law well enough for AG – he would after all, know that he is ineligible.

      hmmmmm

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        He knows. That is why he avoids the topic and sidesteps questions, always focusing on his mother.

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

    I refuse to bend my principles.

  • davienne

    After ovomit i think a martian would be elligible…

  • westernhunter

    This web page is very good at explaining NBC. One must remember just because you are not a NBC you may still be a US citizen. There are different meanings. One being you are not eligible to be President unless you are a NBC.

    The left was very good at confusing everyone. At the time even JUSTIA (the web site for law cases) eliminated the cases pertaining to NBC.

    http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    • sDee

      The purge of history continues. The preparing of American minds to be global citizens marches on.

      • 57thunderbird

        Agreed.

  • Conservator1

    Whether or not you agree that Cruz is a “natural born citizen (NBC),” there is now a legal precedent that upholds he can run for president. Obama is the son of an American mother and immigrant father and he will serve two terms as President by 2016.

    If Obama qualified as a “natural born citizen,” how can you deny Sen. Cruz of being a NBC?

    • 57thunderbird

      Obama should do prison time along with all those that assisted him in the cover up of his true origin.Precedents be damned!

      • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

        pelosi changed the HI eligibility statement in 2008 for the DNC. removed certain wordings from it.

        • 57thunderbird

          I know Piglosi is complicit in the cover up,along with several others!

          • Sulli159

            I am always amazed at how the Illinois Election and the Federal Electional Commission turned a blind eye.

      • Conservator1

        That’s fine by me 57thunderbird. The last time I checked, we are still a nation that affords us the right to hold any opinion on any issue we choose. You can believe that Obama’s presidency didn’t create a legal precedent or as you put it, “Precedents be damned!”

        However, until the Supreme Court decides to finally address who is a “natural born citizen (NBC)” or Congress passes new legislation defining NBC, it’s my belief that you can’t deny Sen. Cruz a chance to run for the president when his birth history is basically the same as Obama.

        It’s just my opinion and like you, I’m free to have my beliefs as well. While this is an interesting topic, no-one today can answer these questions on NBC.

    • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

      there has been no legal precedent.
      someone getting away with something is not precedent.
      treasonous and seditious maybe, but not precedent.
      obama original DNC filing in 2008 purposely had the wording removed that mentioned constitutional eligibility.

  • sDee

    So America will accept a man born on Canadian soil to a Cuban father as eligible to hold it highest office, simply because Byron York says so?

    I could have saved myself a lot of typing and instead looked over at TRS’s quote from Mark Steyn.

    “No society can survive this level of stupidity!”

    Mark Steyn for President! – He was born in Canada and Piers Morgan tells us he is eligible.

    • 57thunderbird

      Not this American.I like Cruz too,but the law is the law.

  • ArlenWilliams

    “Generally thought?” By whom? Not by the framers, from what we see and may directly infer.

    “Natural” was added to that phrase by John Jay for a reason. They wanted to ban anyone with a competing allegiance (especially by means of any other or additional citizenship) from that *particular* office. “Natural” means in this case, by means of the generally understood rights of inheritance, especially coming by means of one’s natural father. Vattel was their textbook on international law. It makes it clear, one’s father has to be a citizen, for one to be a “natural born citizen.” That does not preclude other kinds of citizenship. But again, this is about “natural born citizenship,” all three words used for their specific meanings.

    Either be for original meaning and intent or not. Either be a conservative or don’t.

  • Grumpa37

    Dr Herbert W Titus, a foremost constitutional scholar, trumps Byron York and calls Cruz, McCain, Obama, and others “citizens by birth,” a status created in and for amendment 14 (after the civil war), and a status which falls short of “natural born citizen,” which is what is required in article two (written shortly after the revolutionary war). Obama is not, and never has been legally president… so how many of us will it take to toss him out?

  • Grumpa37

    If Titus lumps McCain in with Obammy and Cruz, this bothers me. Wasn’t an exception made for children of military personnel sometime in the second quarter of the 1900s?

  • Sulli159

    I really like Sen Cruz and hope he is; would like to see him run provided the GOP and RNC don’t pick another RINO loser.

    However under the Federalists Papers, the definition of a natrual born, do not think Rubio would be. (And the requirement favor the father vs the mother.) In the question of dual loyalities

    http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

    Excerpt

    “What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.”

    more on the link

    That is why even if obama was born in Hawaii, and obama sr, born in Kenya, never became an American citizen, obama would still not come under this definition of a natural born. To further obama’s inelgibility complications: under the British Nationality Act of 1948, all person born in Kenya would come under the British Subject for life. Which means obama sr was a British Subject and even if he did become a US citiizen does not void the Act’s policy.

    Another matter under the Federalists Papers, the foreign-born father that became a naturlaized citizen has to reside in the US for a total of 14 consecutive years.

    That is why Mexican born Romney was qualified.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      There is only two ways you can be a US citizen, either you are naturalized or natural born. Cruz and Rubio are not naturalized citizens, their citizenship was decided at their time of birth, and they can only be natural born citizens of the US.

      • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

        People who are born in this country: (Native Born) US Citizen.
        People who are not born here but naturalized: US Citizen.
        People who are born in this country with both parents being US Citizen at the time of birth: Natural Born Citizen.

        You can only be a Natural Born Citizen at birth. It’s a privilege and not a right.

        To be President you have to be a Natural Born Citizen, OR you had to be a US Citizen at the time of the writing of the Constitution (which was when the Founding Fathers included themselves to be eligible because they were US Citizen but not Natural Born Citizen since the Founding Fathers parents were not US Citizen at the time of their birth for a very obvious reason). It’s right there in the Constitution.

        This is purely and simply common sense. Again, nobody says that Cruz, Rubio or Jindal are not US Citizen. They are, and they can be Congressmen, Senators, Governors, etc… but not President.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          So says you that a natural born citizen is someone of both mother and father citizens of the US, but I have yet to see one case rule that as a matter of fact. So I can’t say you are right. I have seen cases that ruled that the child born in the US by both alien parents is a natural born citizen.

          • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

            Really? Any link?

            BTW read this PDF and you’ll see that there are Supreme Court cases in US history where they used Emer de Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen…

            http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1891436/naturalborndefined-pdf-may-3-2010-2-28-pm-860k?da=y

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

              United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that virtually everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

              • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

                everyone loves to use wong wrong.
                mario apuzzio goes into it deeply
                http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
                wong is ALWAYS cited by people that WANT to let it slide.

                • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                  Yes, poor Wong get a bum rap.

            • Sulli159

              You’re right in the founding fathers used Vattel’s for their definition of nbc: bottom line on the link

              “At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington. ”

              http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

              Yes, I am a birther

          • http://twitter.com/zeeshopper Zeeshopper

            Here… Let me copy/paste them for your…

            ► 1814 The Venus , 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens);

            ►1830 Shanks vs. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);

            ►1875 Minor vs. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162, 167 -68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);

            ►1879 Ex parte Reynolds , 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);

            ► 1890 United States vs. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal . 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);

            ► 1898 U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (same definition and C.J, Fuller‟s dissent confirming Vattel‟s definition of a “natural born Citizen” );

            ► 1899 Keith vs . U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child);

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

              where is the copy and paste from because it doesn’t explain the cases what you posted.

              • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                LOL, Google them!

      • Sulli159

        Well, I was citing the definition in the Federalist Papers, because I assume they know much more than I because they were there.

      • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

        ALMOST correct, Steven. But, really it’s far more simple….

        1. you can be a naturalized by statute citizen
        2. or a natural born citizen (no statute needed)

        1. Naturalized = born incountry subject to jurisdiction OR 1 US Citizen parent/born incountry OR 2 US Citizen parents/born abroad OR zero US Citizen parents/born abroad takes oath
        2. Natural born citizen = the only thing left over…
        born incountry of citizen parents (2)

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          Maybe the founders meant that natural born = naturalized at birth.

          • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

            no.

            • CaseyGeorge

              No? Were you there? Perhaps the meant “born in a natural fashion”? Maybe to keep future robots from running?

              Fact is, they messed up by using vague terminology.

              • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

                read vattel.
                read the federalists papers.
                they were not vague.
                people just want to act like they were vague.
                they were actually extremely specific as its only mentioned in this ONE place.
                whatever, people want to let it slide for whatever reason and I refuse to play the games.

                • CaseyGeorge

                  The federalist papers and vattel aren’t the Constitution. I understand what you’re saying, but the fact is, if they had explicitly said in the Constitution what they meant, not elsewhere, there’d be no problem. The Federalist papers aren’t law, the Constitution is and can only be judged based on its own contents.

              • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

                Natural fashion? —I have actually seen a comment asking why people born by caesarean section are not allowed to run! Seriously!!

                • CaseyGeorge

                  It was sarcasm…but seriously…they defined nothing

          • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

            Reaching……

  • http://www.facebook.com/julie.hanrattyjacobs Julie Hanratty-Jacobs

    Awesome!!! but will he? he is still a newbie but listening to him since his election, he was born to do this!! he has adapted to the political arena very well, he must has a very old soul…. deja vu! (he been here before)

    I am cruzinwithCruz!!!!!

  • keyesforpres
    • http://www.facebook.com/julie.hanrattyjacobs Julie Hanratty-Jacobs

      while I agree with both parents should be US citizens @ the time of birth…they have broken that law with our “current occupant of the White House” so if they allowed Obama to be eligible, then Cruz also has the qualifications…because what is good for the goose MUST be good for the gander!

      • HarrietHT2

        Nonsense. What utter relativistic garbage. Sit down and think a minute, maybe ten in your case, about the implications of what you’ve just written. Let’s see: if Hitler did it, it must be ok — you can see where I’m going with this. We either abide by the law or we do not.

  • Hornet414fixer

    Let’s see, we have a president (purposely didn’t capitalize) we have no idea where he is from. Hmmmm, Rubio’s parents are from Cuba and now Cruz that is born in Canada. Wow, our president is stealing from the middle class and loves to redistribute wealth and disregards the constitution. What makes you think Rubio doesn’t have some agenda to embrace the communist movement from Cuba and that Cruz isn’t a big proponent of the SPP?? He is a Harvard grad; right?

  • LIBERTYUSA

    … Ted Cruz 2016 .” (period)

  • macwell

    UH?
    Hmm, interesting, now, I’m macwell on this site instead of johnfromjersey, odd, I didn’t make the change. I bet Disqus had something to do with this mystery.
    Anywho all, it’s me, JFJ, (aka) MacWell™ since 1994

  • mainelysteve

    Byron York needs to do his homework, Born to citizen parentS and on US soil is the criteria. Natural born citizen is the requirement.

  • mainelysteve

    Byron needs to learn the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Ted Cruz is NOT eligible, Marco Rubio is NOT eligible, John McCain was not eliglble and Obama is Not eligble.

    • Pingston

      Arguably McCain likely was eligible as he was born to parents stationed elsewhere BY the Govt of the US, not by their own choice. And technically on soil controlled by the US. During WWII to make sure a child (Pricess Margriet) born in an Ottawa hospital to the Dutch Royal Family in 1943 (there for the war’s duration after the Nazi invasion in 1940) was eligible to become a Dutch monarch, the Govt of Canada designated a wing of the hospital “not part of Canada”:

      “The Princess was born in Ottawa, Ontario, as the family had been living in Canada since June 1940 after the occupation of the Netherlands by Nazi Germany. The maternity ward of Ottawa Civic Hospital in which Princess Margriet was born was temporarily declared to be extraterritorial by the Canadian government.[2] Making the maternity ward outside of the Canadian domain caused it to be unaffiliated with any jurisdiction and technically international territory. This was done to ensure that the newborn Princess would derive her citizenship from her mother only, thus making her solely Dutch.

      It is a common misconception that the Canadian government declared the maternity ward to be Dutch territory. Since Dutch nationality law is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis it was not necessary to make the ward Dutch territory for the Princess to become a Dutch citizen. Since Canada followed the rule of jus soli, it was necessary for Canada to disclaim the territory temporarily so that the Princess would not, by virtue of birth on Canadian soil, become a Canadian citizen.”

      The above text is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Netherlands

      This sheds some light on both McCain and Cruz.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/ObamaRelease-YourRecords/100000555737985 ObamaRelease YourRecords

    tsk, tsk, tsk…
    To claim someone born in a foreign country is somehow a “natural born Citizen” is complete and utter nonsense.
    Shame on you!
    Two wrongs don’t make a right!

  • http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

    What Byron York does not know…

    … and what

    – Rush Limbaugh
    – Sarah Palin
    – David Barton
    – Mark Levin
    – Glenn Beck
    – Sean Hannity
    – Ben Shapiro
    – Human Events
    – National Review

    and et alli do NOT talk about, even IF they know.

    There is a difference between ‘natural born Citizen‘ and ‘Citizen‘ in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the only place in the founding documents,

    – the Declaration of Independence,
    – the Articles of Confederation,
    – the U.S. Constitution,

    where the words ‘natural born Citizen’ are written.

    The words ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ are contrasted in the SAME Clause 5, in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ for an obvious reason.

    At the time of of the ADOPTION of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, BEFORE the Constitution was RATIFIED in 1788, BEFORE the U.S. federal government with an Executive was FORMED in 1789, BEFORE General George Washington was elected the 1st President 3 months later in 1789, the distinction was ALREADY present in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

    What this means is that even ‘Citizen’ George Washington was eligible to be POTUS because all ‘citizens’ born BEFORE 1787 were grandfathered into eligibility until that last pre-1787 ‘Citizen’ died.

    After the LAST ‘citizen’ died, ONLY a ‘natural born Citizen’ would be eligible to be POTUS.

    What is “natural born Citizen’ as contrasted with a ‘Citizen’ in 1787?

    Even in 1787 a ‘natural born Citizen’ was recognized as a ‘Citizen’ whose parents, both father AND mother, were ALREADY ‘citizens’ of the new American republic BEFORE the 1787 ‘adoption’ of the new federal U.S. Constitution, BEFORE ‘ratification’ and BEFORE ‘formation’ of the new Republic with an Federal Executive.

    Here’s an open request to Mark Levin –

    Please talk about the difference between ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in the U.S. Constitution without reference to BHObama, and simply to inform and educate the people about the eternal relevance of the distinction between an 1787 ‘natural born Citizen’ and an 1787 ‘Citizen.’

    Also, please elucidate and clarify the reason that the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the words ‘natural born’ and retained the single word ‘Citizen’ to replace the 3 words ‘natural born Citizen’ of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

    Thanks.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    >> “Sen. Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth,
    having been born in Calgary
    to an American-born mother.”

    It seems that Byron York is not aware of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, and the meaning to the Founders of the words ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’.

    It seems that Byron York is not aware of the difference between the 1790 Naturalization Act words ‘natural born Citizen’ and the 1795 Naturalization Act word ‘Citizen’ as it relates to those born on foreign soil, and WHY they words ‘natural born’ were eliminated in the 1795 Naturalization Act.

    The 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts were in the 1st and 2nd President George Washington administrations of our government.

    See the the highlighted words at
    >> http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/

    Scroll down about 2 thirds of the way, down to the section titled “The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795″

    From the 1790 Naturalization Act –

    “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: … ”

    >> “… considered as natural born Citizens… .”

    From the 1795 Naturalization Act –

    “… and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    >> “… considered as citizens … . ”

    – – – – – – – – –

    Why the difference?

    It’s obvious.

    So that foreign born, but still U.S. ‘citizens’ with 2 U.S. ‘citizen’ parents at the time of birth of the child, would NOT be eligible to be POTUS.

    However.

    If the child WAS born on U.S. soil WITH 2 U.S. ‘citizen’ parents at the time the child was born, the ‘Citizen’ child would ALSO be a ‘natural born Citizen’ and WOULD be eligible to be POTUS.

    A ‘citizen’ is not necessarily a ‘natural born Citizen’ because, maybe, ONLY 1 parent ia a U.S. ‘citizen’ at the birth of the child.

    A ‘natural born Citizen,’ with 2 parents who are U.S. ‘citizens’ BEFORE the birth of the child, is ALWAYS a ‘Citizen’ of the Republic and thus eligible to be POTUS.

    Art

    • 1972patriot

      Thank you.

      • http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

        Dittos…

        Thank you, 1972patriot.

        Pass it on verbatim with or without attribution before ‘it,’ another ‘OCCUPY’ insurrection, aka a ‘putsch,’ is tried again by another ‘citizen’ who tries to ‘OCCUPY’ the Oval Office as the next INSURGENT-in-Chief.

        I like the German word ‘putsch’ and the similarity of sound with ‘The Pusher,’ the 1968 drug song by Steppenwolf, and I like the poignant dictionary definition.

        See Wikipedia –
        >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pusher

        The Pusher” is a rock song written by Hoyt Axton, made popular by the 1969 movie Easy Rider which used Steppenwolf’s version to accompany the opening scenes of drug trafficking.

        The lyrics of the song distinguish between a dealer in drugs such as marijuana—who “will sell you lots of sweet dreams”—and a pusher of hard drugs such as heroin—a “monster” who doesn’t care “if you live or if you die“.

        American Heritage Dictionary –

        Putsch – A sudden attempt by a group to overthrow a government.

        It seems that BHObama’s speech where he says that “… we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” was the Progressives ‘forward’ movement ‘putsch’ code by the future Putschist-in-Chief himself… aka BHObama, the current Putsch(er)-in-Chief.

        Art

  • Conniption Fitz

    Not only is Cruz eligible, HE IS QUALIFIED!

  • Pingston

    What’s ignored both above and below is that Ted Cruz by birth is a Canadian. He was granted his American citizenship, apparently, by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. But he remains a dual citizen. Perhaps he could renounce his Canadian citizenship, but Canada would have to accept that renunciation to make it official. And why would they? Wouldn’t it be nice for them to have a Canada-born U.S. President? Much as it may be nice (or not) now for another country to claim Obama as theirs because of his father’s citizenship or his place of birth. While I live in both countries, I have only one citizenship.

  • Pingston

    Methinks, given that Romney, McCain, Cruz and Rubio are all documented as born outside the U.S. (and Obama likely was), it’s about time we find Presidential candidates who were born IN the United States and that legislation be passed which forces political parties to prove their candidate meets all of the Constitutional qualifications.

    • http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

      Dittos…

      BEFORE ‘it’… the ‘OCCUPY’ insurrection, happens again.

      Art

    • http://www.facebook.com/diana.constitution Diana Forthe Constitution

      Rubio is documented born in Miami. His problem is not location of birth, but rather non-citizen parents, as they did not naturalize until he was 4 years old.

      • Pingston

        I stand corrected. My apologies. Based on his birth in U.S., then, I believe he should be eligible to stand for President. Location must mean something. The only line worth drawing might be if a baby were born in an airplane passing over but not touching down in U.S. The baby would be born in U.S. air space but not on U.S. soil. An exception could lead to baby-birthing flights with GPS-linked videos…

    • JungleCogs

      Rubio was born in Miami, FL; last time I checked that was in the USA.

  • JesseTMims

    The U.S. Supreme Court held in Minor v Happersett that the legal definition of NBC is “one born on U.S. soil AND to two U.S. citizen parents.”

    See See http://naturalborncitizen.word

    And http://naturalborncitizen.word

    A ‘holding’ by SCOTUS is legally binding. Thus, when SCOTUS ‘held’ the above to be the term’s definition, that definition became the legal one. Minor was decided in 1875 therefore, any definition that happened to appear in some later dictionary (Black’s or ANY other) is meaningless; because, no mere dictionary supersedes a SCOTUS holding.

    Additionally, on four separate occasions, both before and after Minor, SCOTUS used that same definition in deciding cases. SCOTUS has never used a different definition OTHER that that one in deciding cases.

  • JesseTMims

    I see there is a lot of discussion here about the eligibility issue; and, that is great because every American citizen needs to learn all they can about this most important topic!

    As I have said many times, “Other than the power of God Himself, there is no greater force on planet earth than that of a PROPERLY informed American citizenry!”

    So, with that in mind, below you will find the true facts from the most reliable sources possible; INCLUDING the U.S. Supreme Court! All pertinent information here is backed up with links to the sources with much more detail than there is room for here.

    The two best Constitutional lawyers in America today are Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio. They have independently done the necessary research to learn the true definition of the term, “natural born citizen;” and, each has proved the LEGAL definition to be “one who is born on U.S. soil and born to two U.S. citizen parents. See links provided below. It’s so simple that you can apply that definition to any person on planet earth and determine if he/she is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president of the USA; as, long as you know their true birth details.

    Anyone who wishes to, can argue with these facts all they want to. But, the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, has held the above definition to be the LEGAL definition. Therefore, it is the law; regardless, of whether or not you like it or whether or not it helps your preferred candidate.

    Leo Donofrio has also proved that the Congressional Research service (CRS) deliberately sent misinformation about NBC to every member of Congress and also misquoted Supreme Court cases that legally define that term. That misinformation is still found on Wikipedia and is also often still used by the media and many leftist websites.

    To learn the truth for yourself and also find out where most of the misinformation and the resulting confusion comes from, please read the information at the following links. Reading the comments under the articles at those links is also very interesting and informative. There’s a LOT of information and it can be a bit tedious; but, you don’t have to read and absorb everything in one sitting. Just bookmark the links and read the info a little at a time.

    To read about the lies from the CRS, see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

    For proof of the legal definition, see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

    More on that here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/

    Not only did SCOTUS legally define NBC in Minor v. Happersett, that Court has also used the same definition to decide at least four OTHER cases down through the years. See http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Supreme%20Court

    For proof that, according to U.S. Law, “each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status,” see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

    The CRS is not the only entity that has lied about the meaning of NBC. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/

    Here is a good article written by Mario Apuzzo on this issue: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/atty-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-fred.html

    Now… Who is NOT a natural born citizen and; therefore, NOT eligible to become president…

    Here are some very well known names who fail the test:

    1. John McCain: Born of two U.S. citizens; but, NOT born on U.S. soil. Rather than having been born in a U.S. Naval Hospital on a U.S.. Naval Base inside the Panama Canal Zone, as he often claims, he was actually born in Colon Hospital in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama! Even if he had been born inside the Panama Canal Zone, he was, by Panamanian law, still a citizen of Panama at birth. See the detailed explanation, including link to his birth certificate: “John McCain, citizen of Panama at birth” at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=John+McCain. Despite his lack of eligibility, McCain willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the GOP candidate for president in 2008.

    2. Barack Obama: Possibly born on U.S. soil; but, even if he was born in Hawaii as he claims, he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent at birth; whereas TWO are required. He has never disputed the fact that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Despite his lack of eligibility, he willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee in both 2008 and 2012 and even accepted the title of president even though he can never be an Article II, Section I, paragraph 5 president.

    3. Marco Rubio: Has never disputed the fact that neither of his parents became naturalized citizens until AFTER he was born. But, because they did not, he is not a natural born citizen; even though he was born in Miami, Florida. Despite his lack of eligibility, he refuses to admit that he is not. Whenever asked, he says he is both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.

    4. Ted Cruz: Born in Canada, not on U.S. soil, and had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. He has never denied his birth status. But, despite his lack of eligibility, he claims to be both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.

    5. Piyush “Bobby” Jindal: Born on U.S. soil in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to immigrants from India who arrived in America only six months before he was born. Since it takes years to become a naturalized citizen after coming to this country, it is impossible for Jindal’s parents to have completed the naturalization process before he was born. Despite his lack of eligibility, he maintains that he is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.

    So, we have one who tried and failed, one who tried and succeeded, and three others (Republicans!) waiting in the wings to ride the coattails of Obama’s usurpation into the Oval Office.

    Are we, as conservatives who are supposed to defend and uphold the Constitution that so many of our ancestors died for, going to allow one of “our own” to further erode that document just because Obama has seemingly gotten away with it? Dare we even trust these deceivers to faithfully carry out their duties in ANY elected position; REGARDLESS, of how wonderful they seem?

  • JesseTMims

    I see all the comments have been deleted from here. That is sad because there were some great comments from some who think Cruz and others are eligible for the presidency and some who disagree; including myself. I don’t know the reason for the mass deletion; but, I sincerely hope it was not due to the owners of this site not believing in free speech and allowing people on both sides of an issue to debate that issue in a reasonable manner without name calling and other bad behavior. If there was any such bad behavior, I missed it; so, I’m left to wonder… Hopefully, the site’s owners will reconsider their action and allow the discussion to continue to its own conclusion without further interference.
    With that hope in mind, I’ll restart the discussion and see what happens…
    Th eligibility issue almost always gets a lot of response; and, that is great because every American citizen needs to learn all they can about this most important topic!
    As I have said many times, “Other than the power of God Himself, there is no greater force on planet earth than that of a PROPERLY informed American citizenry!”
    So, with THAT in mind, below you will find the true facts from the most reliable sources possible; INCLUDING the U.S. Supreme Court! All pertinent information here is backed up with links to the sources with much more detail than there is room for here.
    The two best Constitutional lawyers in America today are Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio. They have independently done the necessary research to learn the true definition of the term, “natural born citizen;” and, each has proved the LEGAL definition to be “one who is born on U.S. soil and born to two U.S. citizen parents. See links provided below. It’s so simple that you can apply that definition to any person on planet earth and determine if he/she is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president of the USA; as, long as you know their true birth details.
    Anyone who wishes to, can argue with these facts all they want to. But, the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, has held the above definition to be the LEGAL definition. Therefore, it is the law; regardless, of whether or not you like it or whether or not it helps your preferred candidate.
    Leo Donofrio has also proved that the Congressional Research service (CRS) deliberately sent misinformation about NBC to every member of Congress and also misquoted Supreme Court cases that legally define that term. That misinformation is still found on Wikipedia and is also often still used by the media and many leftist websites.
    To learn the truth for yourself and also find out where most of the misinformation and the resulting confusion comes from, please read the information at the following links. Reading the comments under the articles at those links is also very interesting and informative. There’s a LOT of information and it can be a bit tedious; but, you don’t have to read and absorb everything in one sitting. Just bookmark the links and read the info a little at a time.
    To read about the lies from the CRS, see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/
    For proof of the legal definition, see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/
    More on that here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/
    Not only did SCOTUS legally define NBC in Minor v. Happersett, that Court has also used the same definition to decide at least four OTHER cases down through the years. See http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Supreme%20Court
    For proof that, according to U.S. Law, “each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status,” see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/
    The CRS is not the only entity that has lied about the meaning of NBC. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/
    Here is a good article written by Mario Apuzzo on this issue: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/atty-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-fred.html
    Now… Who is NOT a natural born citizen and; therefore, NOT eligible to become president…
    Here are some very well known names who fail the test:
    1. John McCain: Born of two U.S. citizens; but, NOT born on U.S. soil. Rather than having been born in a U.S. Naval Hospital on a U.S.. Naval Base inside the Panama Canal Zone, as he often claims, he was actually born in Colon Hospital in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama! Even if he had been born inside the Panama Canal Zone, he was, by Panamanian law, still a citizen of Panama at birth. See the detailed explanation, including link to his birth certificate: “John McCain, citizen of Panama at birth” at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=John+McCain. Despite his lack of eligibility, McCain willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the GOP candidate for president in 2008.
    2. Barack Obama: Possibly born on U.S. soil; but, even if he was born in Hawaii as he claims, he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent at birth; whereas TWO are required. He has never disputed the fact that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Despite his lack of eligibility, he willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee in both 2008 and 2012 and even accepted the title of president even though he can never be an Article II, Section I, paragraph 5 president.
    3. Marco Rubio: Has never disputed the fact that neither of his parents became naturalized citizens until AFTER he was born. But, because they did not, he is not a natural born citizen; even though he was born in Miami, Florida. Despite his lack of eligibility, he refuses to admit that he is not. Whenever asked, he says he is both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.
    4. Ted Cruz: Born in Canada, not on U.S. soil, and had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. He has never denied his birth status. But, despite his lack of eligibility, he claims to be both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.
    5. Piyush “Bobby” Jindal: Born on U.S. soil in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to immigrants from India who arrived in America only six months before he was born. Since it takes years to become a naturalized citizen after coming to this country, it is impossible for Jindal’s parents to have completed the naturalization process before he was born. Despite his lack of eligibility, he maintains that he is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.
    So, we have one who tried and failed, one who tried and succeeded, and three others (Republicans!) waiting in the wings to ride the coattails of Obama’s usurpation into the Oval Office.
    Are we, as conservatives who are supposed to defend and uphold the Constitution that so many of our ancestors died for, going to allow one of “our own” to further erode that document just because Obama has seemingly gotten away with it? Dare we even trust these deceivers to faithfully carry out their duties in ANY elected position; REGARDLESS, of how wonderful they seem?

    • smrstrauss

      By no means are Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio the  two best constitutional scholars in the USA. In fact, they are simply two of the three birther lawyers who claim that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from Vattel and not from the common law, and refers to parents and not to the place of birth. 
      But they are wrong. Some example of how little their view is shared by other lawyers is the fact that TEN appeals courts have all ruled on the matter of presidential eligibility either on Obama (nine cases) or McCain (one case), and they all have ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case (NOT the Minor v. Happersett case), and that the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. And, to confirm those ten rulings, on October 1 of last year, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten ruling, the Farrar case in Georgia, which had ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that every  child, EVERY CHILD, born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born US Citizen. And, by turning down that appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the Farrar case, and the other nine appeals court rulings to stand.
       So, Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s views are certainly not shared by the appeals courts and the US Supreme Court. Nor are they shared by such experts in the area as Ronald Ragan’s attorney general, Edwin Meese, in a book published by the Heritage Foundation, or for that matter Black’s Law Dictionary or Senators Hatch and Graham or former senator Fred Thompson. 
       And to truly show how LITTLE their opinions are shared there is the US Electoral College, the final vote on the presidency. In 2008 Obama won 356 electoral votes in the general election. In 2012 Obama won 332 electoral votes in the general election. Well, not one single one of those 356 or 332 changed her or his vote from Obama to McCain or from Obama to Romney (or to a third party candidate or did not vote). Not one. Obama got all 356 and all 332 because (1) not one of them thought that Obama was born in a foreign country; and (2) not one of them thought that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.
      And,  not only are the current appeals court and the Supreme Court and Black’s Law Dictionary and the Electoral College right that the term Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, but that is actually the way that the term was used at the time, as historical quotations from the time show:
      “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people
      inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes:
      natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or
      such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became
      entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to
      none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective
      states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S
      COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
      THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF
      VIRGINIA. (1803)
      (As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.”) And this about 25 years later, written by a man who had been friends with Washington and Franklin:
      “Therefore every person born within the United
      States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens
      or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution,
      and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that
      capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
      STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

      • smrstrauss

        By no means are Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio “the  two best
        constitutional scholars in the USA.” In fact, they are simply two of the
        three birther lawyers who claim that the meaning of Natural Born
        Citizen comes from Vattel and not from the common law, and refers to
        parents and not to the place of birth. 
        But
        they are wrong. Some example of how little their view is shared by
        other lawyers is the fact that TEN appeals courts have all ruled on the
        matter of presidential eligibility either on Obama (nine cases) or
        McCain (one case), and they all have ruled that the meaning of Natural
        Born Citizen was defined by the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case (NOT the
        Minor v. Happersett case), and that the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that
        the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers
        to the place of birth. And, to confirm those ten rulings, on October 1
        of last year, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those
        ten ruling, the Farrar case in Georgia, which had ruled that Obama is a
        Natural Born Citizen because the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim
        Ark case that every  child, EVERY CHILD, born in the USA (except for
        the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born US Citizen. And, by
        turning down that appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of
        the Farrar case, and the other nine appeals court rulings to stand.
         So,
        Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s views are certainly not shared by the appeals
        courts and the US Supreme Court. Nor are they shared by such experts in
        the area as Ronald Ragan’s attorney general, Edwin Meese, in a book
        published by the Heritage Foundation, or for that matter Black’s Law
        Dictionary or Senators Hatch and Graham or former senator Fred
        Thompson. 
         And to truly show how LITTLE their
        opinions are shared there is the US Electoral College, the final vote on
        the presidency. In 2008 Obama won 356 electoral votes in the general
        election. In 2012 Obama won 332 electoral votes in the general election.
        Well, not one single one of those 356 or 332 changed her or his vote
        from Obama to McCain or from Obama to Romney (or to a third party
        candidate or did not vote). Not one. Obama got all 356 and all 332
        because (1) not one of them thought that Obama was born in a foreign
        country; and (2) not one of them thought that two citizen parents are
        required to be a Natural Born Citizen.
        And,  not only
        are the current appeals court and the Supreme Court and Black’s Law
        Dictionary and the Electoral College right that the term Natural Born
        Citizen refers to the place of birth, but that is actually the way that
        the term was used at the time, as historical quotations from the time
        show:
        “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people
        inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes:
        natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or
        such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became
        entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to
        none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective
        states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S
        COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
        THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF
        VIRGINIA. (1803)
        (As you can see, that refers only to the
        place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.”)
        And this about 25 years later, written by a man who had been friends
        with Washington and Franklin:
        “Therefore every person born within the United
        States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens
        or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution,
        and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that
        capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
        STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

        • JesseTMims

          smrstrauss
          More on the federal and state disavowal of British Common Law…
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          …the general assembly of Virginia, at their session in the winter of 1799, have thus expressed their sentiments, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents:
          “It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labor to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers.”
          See http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/tucker/tuck-1e.htm
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Re “”Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people
          inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes:
          natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or
          such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became
          entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to
          none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective
          states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S
          COMMENTARIES”
          As you can see, that refers only to the
          place of birth…”
          I can also see that it refers ONLY to things as they were “PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION…” I would ask you what Blackstone says about about how things were AFTER the Constitution was adopted? But, I already know.
          For example:
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
          In his commentaries on the laws of England, Blackstone vehemently denies that British Common Law has any allowance or authority in America. He said, “Plantations, or colonies in distant countries, as he observes, are either such where the lands are claimed by the right of occupancy, only, by finding them desert and uncultivated, and peopling them from the mother country; or where, when already cultivated they have been either gained by conquest, or ceded by treaties. And both these rights are founded upon the law of nature, or at least upon that of nations. But there is a difference between the two species of colonies, with respect to the laws by which they are bound. For it has been held, that if any uninhabited country be discovered, and planted by English subjects, all the English laws then in being, which are the birthright of every subject, are immediately there in force…”
          ~~~~~~~~~~~ snip ~~~~~~~~~
          “But in conquered or ceded countries, that have already laws of their own, the king may indeed alter and change those laws; but till he does actually change them, the ancient laws of the country remain, unless such as are against the laws of God, as in the case of an infidel country. Our American plantations are principally of this latter sort; being obtained in the last century, by right of conquest, and driving out the natives, or by treaties. And therefore the common law, as such, has no allowance or authority there.” – – – Volume 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries p 106, 107, 108
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          And, then there is this:
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:
          First …. That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.
          Secondly …. That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.
          Thirdly …. That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it’s own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state has an exclusive right to be governed by it’s own laws only.
          Fourthly …. Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations …. which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.
          Fifthly …. That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.
          Vol. 1 Note E
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        • smrstrauss

          It seems that Conservatives on this site have forgotten their core values. Among those posting here are people who consider themselves libertarians. They hold that unless a law or the Constitution takes away a privilege or a right, we still have it. If a public beach does not have a specific regulation barring nudity, there is nothing that forbids someone from going nude.
          Well, where in the Constitution or any law are there specific words saying that the US-born children of foreigners cannot be president? Where? Answer: There are no such words.
          Yes, there are birther lawyers and people on this site that say that the term Natural Born Citizen refers to two parents because of Vattel. But that is very much in doubt because Vattel’s French word “indignes” was not translated as Natural Born Citizen before the Constitution was written. Also because the far more common use of Natural Born when the Constitution was written was based on the phrase Natural Born in the common law that referred to the place of birth.
          So, if there are any libertarians reading, remember that the two-parent theory would take away a privilege or a right NOT because of any specific language but only because of the improbable theory that the founders read Vattel in French, and translated his word “indignes” as Natural Born Citizen, and then used that translation in the US Constitution, and  that they did that without telling anyone that they were using the Vattel translation.
          There is also a strong Conservative legal principle called Strict Construction. It is much like Libertarian principles. It holds that if the law or the Constitution does not specifically say something, then you are not allowed to base your rulings based on speculation as to the real intent of the writers. You are not allowed to deduce from the “penumbra” that the writers intended to say X, but forgot to say it. Yes, liberal court interpretation works just the reverse of this, and does deduce from the “penumbra,” but Conservatives should hold to their principles and not fall down to their level.
          So, on the basis of strict construction, does the US Constitution ever specifically say that two citizen parents are required? Answer: No it does not. Does it say that one citizen parent is required? Answer: No it does not. Does it say that the president must be a citizen? Yes it does. What kind of a citizen? A Natural Born Citizen.
          Once again, the birther lawyers and people who post on this site claim that Natural Born must have come from a translation of Vattel’s French word “indignes”—–since no English language translation of his work had before the Constitution used Natural Born Citizen. But this still requires us to believe that the writers of the Constitution translated “indignes” into Natural Born Citizen and used that and not the far more common use of the term from the common law—–and that in fact they did so without leaving any articles or letters saying that they did so. Under Strict Construction you are not allowed to make rulings on that basis. Without evidence, you are are basing your interpretation on speculation.
          So, under both Libertarian and Strict Construction, the  two parent theory fails.
          That leaves Original Intent. But Original Intent also has its standards. It requires EVIDENCE, not mere speculation, that the meaning of the term when the law or the Constitution was written meant a specific meaning and not another meaning (especially when the other meaning is far more common). So, are there any articles or letters saying that the writers of the Constitution were using Vattel? Answer: No, there are not. So, are there any articles or letters saying that the writers of the Constitution were referring to two citizen parents (or even one?) Answer: No, there are not.
          But surely the writers of the US Constitution did read Vattel? Sure they did, but they read a lot of other things too. In particular, they read Blackstone, who said that the meaning of Natural Born was in the common law and referred to the place of birth. So the fact that the writers of the Constitution read Vattel does not mean that they used a translation of his word “indignes” and not the common law’s Natural Born.
          And, not only did the writers of the US Constitution NOT say that they were using Vattel, but my search of their writings (the complete works of Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Wilson, Franklin and others are online at the Library of Congress) for the phrase “Natural Born” (which turns up any use of the term, whether in Natural Born Subject or Natural Born Citizen) fails to turn up a single example before or after the Constitution was written in which Natural Born is ever used to refer to parents.
          And, the quotations of Tucker and Rawle, who knew the founders and wrote shortly after the Constitution was written, both use the term Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law. So, the evidence is tremendously strong that the Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law. And the evidence is incredibly weak  that it comes from a translation of Vattel’s word “indignes.”
          So, on Original Intent, the two parent theory fails.
          But, some say, “surely, if the writers had merely intended the president to be a native born citizen, they would have used Native Born and not Natural Born.” The answer is that Native Born was not a particularly popular phrase at the time but that Natural Born was. And, as said before, the term Natural Born referred to the place of birth, just as native born does (with the minor legal exception that Natural Born does not include the children of foreign diplomats).
          Another reason that the writers of the US Constitution used Natural Born and not Native Born was that they were mainly lawyers, and Natural Born is a legal term. And what was John Jay referring to when he wrote his letter to George Washington that the commander in chief must be a Natural Born Citizen? Answer, John Jay was a lawyer and a justice (who would become the first chief justice of the USA), so the probabilities are huge that he was using the term from the common law. And they are virtually nil that he was using the term from a translation of “indignes”—without telling Washington that he was using a translation of a French word and not the common term from the common law.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
           Re the alleged disavowal of common law.
           There is certainly no evidence of that being true since the common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, usually with praise.  Also, since John Jay wrote the common law into the first constitution (1777) of New York State—making the common law prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord the LAW of New York state until a New York statute changes it. And since common law terms as Habeas Corpus and ex post facto appear in the US Constitution.
          But, say that they were not using the common law in the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Say that they had switched from the common meaning that they had used for years and decades, the one based on the place of birth, to a new one based on parents——-don’t you think that they would have told us????
           Well, they didn’t, and that is why Tucker and Rawle, who knew the writers of the Constitution and wrote shortly after it, used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that it was used in the common law, to refer to the PLACE of birth and not the citizenship of the parents.

        • smrstrauss

          Continuing:
           
          But what about Minor v. Happersett and the other cases that have, you say, ruled that two citizen parents are required? Answer: In fact, Minor v. Happersett did not rule that two citizen parents are REQUIRED at all, nor did any other Supreme Court ruling. And, if it did (and it didn’t), the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and because it is after, it is the ruling that applies, and it says that the meaning of common law comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.
          But some say that the three birther lawyers, Apuzzo, Donofrio and Titus say that the Wong Kim Ark ruling only ruled that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen. Answer: It did rule that Wong is a citizen, but it did not ONLY do that. It also defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. But some say thatApuzzo, Donofrio and Titus say that the Wong Kim Ark case did not say that at all.
          Answer: This quotation clearly shows that it did:
          “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
          III. The same rule was in force in all 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.”
          But, some say that the above refers only to Natural Born Subjects and not to Natural Born Citizens. Answer: That claim does not hold water. Why not? Because the statement says “continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established”——meaning citizens, not subjects.
          But, some say, the Americans fought a revolution not to be under the common law; they hated the common law. Answer: There is certainly no evidence of that being true since the common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, usually with praise.  Also, since John Jay wrote the common law into the first constitution (1777) of New York State—making the common law prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord the LAW of New York state until a New York statute changes it.
           But, some say, that using the common law allows dual citizens to be president, and the founders worried about divided allegiance. Answer: Again you are basing a legal interpretation on what you THINK their motives were. Did they ever say that they were worried about divided allegiance? Answer: No. (And there is good evidence that they did not believe that allegiance could be divided and that the sole criterion of allegiance is the place of birth—want to see the Madison quotation on this???)
          But, some say, that using the common law definition, meaning every child born in the country, makes a Natural Born Citizen just like an ordinary citizen, and the Constitution distinguishes between citizens and Natural Born Citizens. Answer: Yes it does distinguish, and the reason is that there really is a difference between them. Ordinary citizens include naturalized citizens, who are always born on foreign soil. Natural Born Citizens do not include naturalized citizens.
          To be sure, some Natural Born Citizens are born overseas to US parents, but that is a new definition of the term Natural Born. Under the original definition, the common law definition, what counted was the place of birth, and that is the way that Blackstone uses the term for Natural Born Subjects and Tucker and Rawle use it for Natural Born Citizens.
          But what about the Minor v. Happersett case, surely it said that two citizen parents are required? Answer: No it didn’t. All that it said was that if you had both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, birth in the country and citizen parents, it had never been doubted that you were a Natural Born Citizen. And Virginia Minor, the plaintiff in the case, had both. But it never said that having both was required, only that if you had both your Natural Born status was “never doubted.”
          Although it was never doubted that if you wore suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up, wearing both of them at the same time is not really necessary to hold your pants up.
          In any case, the Minor v. Happersett case was before the Wong Kim Ark case and ten appeals court rulings say that it is the key ruling on the matter.
          The bottom line is that the birther lawyers and their supporters are pulling your chain with the two-parent theory. There is no evidence, and there would have to be evidence for a court to rule, that the writers of the Constitution took the term from Vattel’s French word “indignes.” If they had translated “indignes” and used that meaning of Natural Born Citizen and not the one in the common law—-they would almost certainly have told us, and they didn’t. If they had translated “indignes” and used that meaning of Natural Born Citizen and not the one in the common law—-Tucker and Rawle who wrote at the time would have known about it and used the Vattel meaning and not that of the common law.
          Still, three birther lawyers continue to insist that the term comes from Vattel or from some theory of Natural Law and not from the common law. But they cannot show any evidence of this. And their views are not shared by the overwhelming majority of court rulings and constitutional scholars. Nor does the historical research confirm what they claim. Nor do the US Supreme Court rulings, since the key ruling is the Wong Kim Ark case which ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
          But that means that an Anchor Baby is eligible. Answer: Yes it does. If you don’t want an Anchor Baby to be president, don’t vote for her.  Like Anchor Babies, Natural Born Citizens who have been convicted of crimes are eligible to be president. The Unibomber is eligible. But why didn’t the authors of the Constitution protect us from the chance that the Unibomber or an Anchor Baby might run for president and thus might actually become president? Answer: Because they expected the voters could figure things like that out for themselves.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMims smrstrauss  
          The notion that the founders disliked common law is disproved by their using common law terms like habeas corpus and ex post facto in the US Constitution and by their reference to the common law about twenty times in the Federalist Papers (and always with praise) and by the fact that John Jay wrote the common law into the first Constitution of the State of New York (1777), making it the law of New York State unless and until it is changed by a New York statute.
          More importantly, the issue is not whether they adopted the common law. It is simply whether the term Natural Born came from the popular use of the  term at the time ,which was the common law, or from some other source. It certainly could not have come from Vattel because his French word “indignes” was not translated as Natural Born Citizen in any English language book until TEN years after the US Constitution (and if the writers had gone to the length of translating is word “indignes” as Natural Born Citizen and using it and not the term from the common law, they would surely have told us about them doing that).

      • JesseTMims

        smrstrauss 
        Re Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo’s credentials… and your highly touted “TEN appeals courts.”
        At
        least both men have given detailed explanations as to why their
        arguments are correct, to which I have posted links to much of. So,
        before continuing to denigrate them, I suggest that you post links to
        the explanations from the judges who decided those appeal court cases
        and the lawyers whose arguments were apparently so persuasive as to why their own arguments should be believed. That way,
        everyone reading our comments can check out both sides and decide for
        themselves which is the more believable.
        I’m betting that you are not up to the challenge… but, it’s really moot since none of those cases set a precedent nor supersedes the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s legally binding holding in Minor v Happersett that the definition of natural born citizen is “one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.”
        Regardless, I don’t think those ten court rulings can match the stature of the list of sources found here: https://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims/posts/439909152753639
        Re “they are simply two of the
        three birther lawyers who claim that the meaning of Natural Born
        Citizen comes from Vattel and not from the common law, and refers to
        parents and not to the place of birth”
        The father of the Constitution, James Madison, said “What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the
        new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions.
        The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by
        all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am
        not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the
        Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a
        general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of
        law to be in force till legally changed. What could the Convention have
        done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in
        force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in
        the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have
        brought over from Great Britain a thousand heterogeneous &
        antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself,
        for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a
        discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a
        Constitution.” James Madison to Geo Washington Oct 18, 1787.”
        THAT is a clear indictment of British Common Law; NOT an embracement of it.
        See “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/
        And,  “US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.”
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/
        As for Wong Kim Ark, I once again point out that your interpretation of the specifics of that case are wrong.
         See “Justice
        Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural
        Born Citizen.”
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
        Re “the Electoral College not changing any of their votes”
        That body typically does not switch candidates; so, that argument is pretty meaningless. Additionally, nothing the Electoral College does supersedes the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s legally binding
        holding in Minor v Happersett that the definition of natural born
        citizen is “one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.”
        Re Ed Meese…
        The words you keep trying to connect his name to were never spoken by him. Do you even know who the real author of those words is?
        Re “Black’s Law Dictionary”
        You’re referring to a definition of NBC that was published in an edition of a dictionary (the ninth) more than two hundred years AFTER the constitution was written. Moreover, the very <i>first</i> edition of Black’s was not published until more than a hundred years after the Constitution. It’s also notable that only the ninth edition even contains a definition for the term “natural born citizen.”

        • smrstrauss

          Re: “I suggest that you post links to
          the explanations from the judges who decided those appeal court cases…”
          I will do better  than that and show the quotations from the cases themselves. I will do better than that. I will post quotations from the rulings themselves (but sorry, I do not have links to them).
          Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
          Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
          Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
          Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
          Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
          Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
          Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
          And, on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.
           
          In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:

          Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
          “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
          Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
          “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
          Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
          “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
           
          That makes about 10 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.

          In addition, there are articles like this:
          http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

          and this:

          http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

          and this:

          http://online.wsj.com/article
          /SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett

          And the Congressional Research Service and Black’s Law Dictionary, and the opinions of the two legal scholars who knew the writers of the US constitution, Tucker and Rawle, shown above.

        • smrstrauss

          Re: Black’s Law Dictionary and “You’re referring to a definition of NBC that was published in an
          edition of a dictionary (the ninth) more than two hundred years AFTER
          the constitution was written..”
          Answer: Well, duh. Are you saying that Apuzzo and Donofrio wrote before  the Constitution was written—or even at around the same time as  the Constitution was written, such as the quotations from Tucker and Rawle? No certainly not. 
           Well, neither is Black’s Law Dictionary. It is contemporary opinion, on the subject, as are the rulings and the articles cited. it is an example of the massive amount of informed legal opinion that  the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth. 
          Black’s and the rulings and the articles are what experts TODAY say about Natural Born Citizen status. Tucker and Rawle are examples of what AMERICANS (not Swiss, like Vattel) said about Natural Born Citizen status at about the time that the Constitution was written, and both of them knew the men who wrote the Constitution. And as the quotations show both of them used Natural Born Citizen to refer to the place of birth.

        • JesseTMims

          smrstrauss
          Re “I will do better  than that and show the quotations from the cases
          themselves. I will do better than that. I will post quotations from the
          rulings themselves (but sorry, I do not have links to them)”
          Promises, promises… that is all you have given for what you have offered IS NO BETTER because it is nothing like what I asked for. You complained about Donofrio and Apuzzo’s credentials and I pointed out that they had at least given detailed reasons why their arguments were valid and asked that you give something comparable from the judges and lawyers involved in your ten appeals court cases. Yet, all you have is a few quotes pertaining to each case and NO links whatsoever to even prove they came from where you claim.
          It’s clear that, just as I predicted, you are not up to the challenge.
          Besides, not a single one of the lower courts you depend on have  issued, nor can they issue, a legally binding holding such as that of the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett which defined natural born citizen as one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.
          That definition comes from the laws of nature which evolved into the laws of nations, as recorded (but not invented) by Vattel in his book, “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758).”
          There is absolutely nothing you CAN offer to repudiate that fact.

        • JesseTMims

          Re “the Congressional Research Service…”
          Was proven by Leo Donofrio to have deliberately sent misinformation and outright lies to Congress; and, is therefore, not acceptable as a source.
          See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/
          Re “Black’s Law Dictionary…”
          As I have pointed out above, no dictionary supersedes the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s legally binding
          holding in Minor v Happersett that the definition of natural born
          citizen is “one born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.”
          Re Tucker…
          Says at least as much, if not more, in favor of the Framers of the Constitution NOT succumbing to British Common Law than in support of your claim to the contrary; as, I have posted elsewhere on this site.
          As for ALL your other sources, I’ll let Mario Apuzzo tell you onnce again…
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Article 2,
          Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States provides in
          relevant part: “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.” Nobody alive
          today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather
          clause, for he or she, including Obama, was not a “Citizen of the United
          States” at the time the Constitution was adopted. Hence, being a
          “Citizen of the United States” is not sufficient to satisfy Article 2’s
          presidential eligibility requirements. What is necessary is that a
          person be a “natural born Citizen.” A brief review of the manner in
          which a “natural born Citizen” has been defined throughout our history
          shows that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” and is therefore not
          eligible to be President. Here are the legal and historical sources that
          I base my opinion on (the list is not exhaustive):
          (1) Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)
          “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this
          society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
          participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,
          are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the
          society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
          children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition
          of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is
          supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own
          preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each
          citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
          becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of
          the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit
          consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of
          discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the
          society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the
          country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a
          citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the
          place of his birth, and not his country.” – – – Id. Sec. 212 Citizens
          and natives.
          (2) Founder and historian, David Ramsay, A
          Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of
          a Citizen (1789) (in obviously referring to a “natural born citizen”
          said that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who
          have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” Id. at 6);
          (3) Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (our early
          Congresses considered any child born in the United States to alien
          parents an alien, revealing that birth to citizen parents was necessary
          to be a “natural born Citizen”);
          (4) St. George Tucker,
          Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803) (St. George Tucker, one of the greatest
          jurists of American history and considered America’s Blackstone, said
          that the “civil right” to be elected President is “inherited by all
          whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens” and that any
          person who became a “citizen” other than by being born to “citizen”
          parents was a naturalized “citizen” and forever barred from being
          eligible to be elected President);
          (5) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8
          Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring) (“The
          natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are
          citizens”);
          (6) Speaker of the House, Rep. Langdon Cheves, in
          the House of Representative in 1814, reported in The Historical Register
          of the United States, Vol 3, Part 1, Sec. 7, p. 174 (Philadelphia 1814)
          (“The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they
          are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to
          their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth
          and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter
          into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born
          free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine
          whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he
          was destined by his birth”);
          (7) Alexander McLeod, A Scriptural
          View of the Character, Causes, and Ends of the Present War (2nd ed.
          1815) (“I readily admit, that there is something in the idea of native
          country, which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance.
          It is not, however the spot of earth, upon which the child is born, that
          connects him with the national society; but the relation of the child’s
          parents to that society. . . . In the present discussion, nevertheless,
          it is necessary, that I distinctly state the true bond, which connects
          the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a
          piece land, but the moral relations of his parentage. Let a child be
          born within the walls of a church, that does not make him a church
          member; but if the parent or parents be in connexion with the church, so
          is the offspring. Visible society, as it is provided for in the
          constitution of human nature, naturally seeks to perpetuate its own
          existence, by conferring upon children the membership of their parent.
          Each citizen too is supposed to reserve for his off spring the benefits
          of society. The Governor of the universe approves of this provision.
          Thus it is, that the country of the father is that of the child, and not
          because he happened to be born in its territory. . . . ‘By the law of
          nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter
          into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this
          particular—for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights,
          but extraction.’ Vattel, Sec. 216—220.” Id. at 170-71);
          Continued…

        • JesseTMims

          smrstrauss
          (8) Inglis v.
          Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (children born in the country
          follow the citizenship of their parents; a child born in the United
          States to alien parents was alien born); (the Court explained that it
          was deciding a citizenship question not within the context of the old
          British colonies but within the context of a new society that had been
          created by revolution and which had set up a new government and formed
          new relations between the government and the people. Indeed, the Court
          told us that the doctrines of “broad . . . allegiance” and “perpetual
          allegiance” found in the old English common no longer applied in the new
          nation);
          (9) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
          (“children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family
          of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that
          country,” meaning that the father had to be a citizen for the child to
          be a citizen);
          (10) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
          (Justice Daniels concurring) (citing and quoting Vattel’s Section 212
          said: “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the
          country of parents who are citizens”);
          (11) John A. Bingham,
          (R-Ohio) U.S. Congressman, March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.,
          1291(1866) (commenting on Civil Rights Act of 1866 said that “every
          human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents
          not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of
          your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”);
          (12) Civil
          Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (“[A]ll persons born in the
          United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians
          not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”);
          (13) United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
          (Justice Noah H. Swayne, commenting on whether the English common law
          defined a “citizen” or a “natural born citizen,” said: “The constitution
          uses the words ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizens;’ but neither that
          instrument nor any act of congress has attempted to define their
          meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn,
          throws little light upon the subject . . . . Blackstone and Tomlin
          contain nothing upon the subject.” Id. at 788. We can see that the court
          told us that we derived the definition neither of a “citizen” nor of a
          “natural born Citizen” from the English common law);
          (14)
          Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36(1872) (the
          Fourteenth Amendment “was intended to exclude from its operation
          children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign
          States born within the United States”);
          (15) Minor v.
          Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (said that the Fourteenth
          Amendment does not define a “natural-born citizen,” and that the under
          the “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”);

          Continued…

        • JesseTMims

          (16) Ex parte
          Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879)
          (“The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing
          condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that
          country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page
          101), says: ‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise
          than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow
          the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The
          country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these
          become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’ Again, on page 102,
          Vattel says: ‘By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition
          of their fathers and enter into all their rights.’ This law of nature,
          as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any
          positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case”);
          (17) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (“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”);
          (18) U.S. v. Wong
          Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (a child born in the country to
          domiciled and resident alien parents is a “citizen of the United States”
          under the Fourteenth Amendment, but a child born in the country to
          “citizen” parents is a “natural born Citizen”); (Chief Justice Fuller,
          with whom Justice Harlan joined, explained in his dissent:
          “Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
          The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of
          parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate
          itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children
          naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
          their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of
          what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of
          course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his
          children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers
          is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens
          merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their
          coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and
          what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in
          order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a
          father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it
          will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
          Book I, c.19, § 212.
          The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the
          matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his
          parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that
          children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally
          the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.
          And to the same effect are the modern writers, as for instance, [p709] Bar, who says:
          To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely
          dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the
          citizenship of the parents determines it — that of the father where
          children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother,
          without regard to the place of their birth, and that must necessarily
          be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is, in its
          essence, dependent on descent.
          Int.Law. § 31.

          Continued…

        • JesseTMims

          The framers of
          the Constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman
          law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and
          those based on the personal and invisible character of origin, and there
          is nothing to show that, in the matter of nationality, they intended to
          adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just
          assisted in overthrowing.
          Manifestly, when the sovereignty of
          the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established,
          every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in
          the Colonies in derogation of the principles on which the new government
          was founded was abrogated.
          The States, for all national
          purposes embraced in the Constitution, became one, united under the same
          sovereign authority and governed by the same laws, but they retained
          their jurisdiction over all persons and things within their territorial
          limits except where surrendered to the General Government or restrained
          by the Constitution, and protection to life, liberty and property rested
          primarily with them. So far as the jus commune, or folk-right, relating
          to the rights of persons was concerned, the Colonies regarded it as
          their birthright, and adopted such parts of it as they found applicable
          to their condition. Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137.
          They became
          sovereign and independent States, and when the Republic was created,
          each of the thirteen States had its own local usages, customs and common
          law, while, in respect of the National Government, there necessarily
          was no general, independent and separate common law of the United
          States, nor has there ever been. Wheaton v. Peter, 8 Pet. 591, 658.
          [p710]
          As to the jura corona, including therein the obligation
          of allegiance, the extent to which these ever were applicable in this
          country depended on circumstances, and it would seem quite clear that
          the rulemaking locality of birth, the criterion of citizenship because
          creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American
          Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.

          Doubtless, before the latter event, in the progress of monarchical
          power, the rule which involved the principle of liege homage may have
          become the rule of Europe; but that idea never had any basis in the
          United States.
          A Chief Justice Taney observed in Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 618, though in a different connection:
          It is true that most of the States have adopted the principles of
          English jurisprudence so far as it concerns private and individual
          rights. And when such rights are in question, we habitually refer to the
          English decisions not only with respect, but in many cases as
          authoritative. But in the distribution of political power between the
          great departments of government, there is such a wide difference between
          the power conferred on the President of the United States and the
          authority and sovereignty which belong to the English Crown that it
          would be altogether unsafe to reason from any supposed resemblance
          between them, either as regards conquest in war or any other subject
          where the rights and powers of the executive arm of the government are
          brought into question. Our own Constitution and form of government must
          be our only guide.
          And Mr. Lawrence, in his edition of Wheaton (Lawrence’s Wheaton, p. 920), makes this comment:
          There is, it is believed, as great a difference between the territorial
          allegiance claimed by an hereditary sovereign on feudal principles and
          the personal right of citizenship participated in by all the members of
          the political community, according to American institutions, as there is
          between the authority and sovereignty of the Queen of England and the
          power of the American President, and the inapplicability of English
          precedents is as clear in the one case as in the other. The same view,
          with particular application to naturalization, was early taken by [p711]
          the American commentator on Blackstone. Tucker’s Blackstone, Vol. 1,
          Pt. 2, Appx. p. 96.”
          Wong Kim Ark, at 710-11 (C.J. Fuller dissenting).
          (19) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325(1939) (a child born in the United
          States to “citizen” parents who became so through naturalization was a
          “natural born Citizen”); and
          (20) Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S.
          163, 165 (1964) (a naturalized citizen has the same rights as a “citizen
          of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, but only
          a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president).

          Obama’s father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. Under the
          British Nationality Act 1948, he was born a British citizen. Under that
          same act, any child born to Obama the father, no matter where born,
          also became a British citizen. See the British Nationality Act 1948 (was
          similar to our statutes which provided that any child born abroad to
          British parents was a British citizen). Obama was born to an alien
          father who never became a U.S. citizen. That made Obama born subject to a
          foreign power as much as if he had been born to two alien parents.
          Obama was born a citizen of Great Britain. So, Obama may have been born a
          “citizen of the United States,” if he was born in Hawaii, but he was
          also born a British citizen. At age 2, under the British Independence
          Act 1963 and the Kenyan Constitution, his British citizenship also
          automatically converted to Kenyan citizenship. Under the current
          Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Obama is a citizen of Kenya.
          Owing
          allegiance to any foreign power, Obama cannot be President and Commander
          in Chief. Under the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the
          Commander in Chief, given his duties and daily workings in the
          international arena and his need to command our troops in time of war,
          must, from the moment of his birth, be in allegiance and loyalty only to
          the United States. Indeed, the President and military Commander must be
          born within the full and complete civil, political, and military
          allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. In the eyes of the
          Founders, Framers, and the People, because Mr. Obama was born subject to
          a foreign power (Great Britain and Kenya), Mr. Obama is not an Article
          II “natural born Citizen” and is therefore not eligible to be President.
          You express disagreement with my argument. You say that Wong Kim Ark
          ruled that the meaning of a natural born citizen comes from the English
          common law and refers to the place of birth. You then provide the “same
          rule” quote from Wong Kim Ark which I assume you believe supports your
          premises. The problem that I have with your argument is that Justice
          Gray told us what the law of England was as it related to a “natural
          born subject,” but he did not tell us what the law in the United States
          was as it related to a “natural born Citizen.” I also did not see
          anywhere in the Wong Kim Ark quote any reference to “natural born
          Citizen.” I did see a reference to “natural born subject.” But we have
          seen from my sources above that the two clauses are not the same thing.
          Now would you be so kind as to provide the historical and legal sources
          which support any notion that Wong Kim Ark defined a “natural born
          Citizen” under the English common law rather than just a “citizen of the
          United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment with the aid of
          the English common law. You can use the sources that Hollander, Ankeny,
          and Tisdale would have relied upon in order for their decision to be of
          any legal value.
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
          Re: ”
          See “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/
          Answer: Minor v. Happersett is certainly not binding precedent because the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER Minor v. Happersett and hence would overturn it (if Minor v. Happersett had even been a ruling, which it wasn’t). birther lawyers either disagree with this or claim despite the actual words of the ruling that Wong Kim Ark case did not rule on the matter. But it did, and the words of the ruling appear above, and ten appeals courts all have confirmed that the Wong Kim Ark ruling did in fact rule on the matter and that it is the key ruling and that the Wong Kim Ark ruling said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel) and  that it said that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.

        • smrstrauss

          Replying to: ”
           
          Re Ed Meese…
          The words you keep trying to connect his name
          to were never spoken by him. Do you even know who the real author of
          those words is?”
          Answer: Ed Meese was the editor of the book and takes responsibility for it, are you suggesting that he did not pick a conservative writer to write that section? The Heritage Foundation was the publisher of the book and takes responsibility for it, are you suggesting that he did not pick a conservative writer to write that section?  
           And, in fact the writer of the section IS a conservative. His name is James C. Ho, and he was a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and is a member of the conservative legal association, the Federalist Society.

          And, as I said, the views in that quotation are shared by senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson, and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
          Re: ” Besides, not a single one of the lower courts you depend on have  issued, nor can they issue, a legally binding holding…”
          Well, duh, of course.  But it was claimed that the US Supreme Court did not issue a ruling on the matter of Natural Born Citizen, and the TEN appeals courts quoting that opinion show that there was an opinion. It does exist, and it did say that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
          The Wong Kim Ark case is the legally binding ruling, not the Minor v. Happersett ruling. There are two reasons for this. First that the Wong Kim Ark ruling was AFTER the Minor v. Happersett ruling. Second, the Minor v. Happersett ruling did not say that two citizen parents are required, as you think. 
          Re: “That definition comes from the laws of nature which evolved
          into the laws of nations, as recorded (but not invented) by Vattel in
          his book, “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758).”
          Answer: There is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution took Vattel’s French word “indignes” and translated it as Natural Born Citizen and used that translation in Natural Born Citizen without telling us—and they didn’t tell us. Vattel’s book did not have the phrase in it in “Natural Born Citizen” in any English translation until TEN years after the Constitution was written. 

          Thus their translation and use of the translation without telling is is highly unlikely, and they were mainly LAWYERS and justices, familiar with the term in the common law, as was John Jay, and if he had intended to use the term Natural Born Citizen from Vattel or from some theory of Natural Law in his letter to George Washington, and not the meaning in the common law, he would have told him that he was.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMims  smrstrauss
          Re: ” There is absolutely nothing you CAN offer to repudiate that fact.”
          Vattel was probably a great guy, but we did not use all of his recommendations, such as the one that every country should have a state religion. So, we did not take all of his recommendations, even if they were “Natural Law”–so what is the evidence we took his definition of Natural Born citizen?
           More importantly, the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” did not appear in Vattel’s book before the Constitution was written. He said that something called an “indignes” required two citizen parents. Is an “indignes” a Natural Born Citizen?

          Maybe (but you know, when the US Constitution is translated into French, they never use “indignes” as the French for Natural Born Citizen), or maybe not. But one thing is certain, for the writers of the Constitution to have gotten Natural Born Citizen from Vattel, they would have had to have translated indignes—and the idea that they made that translation and used it instead of the commonly used term Natural Born in the common law WITHOUT TELLING US is far fetched, to say the least.
          The only possible answer to that is the claim that Vattel’s definition was so common that they did not have to tell us that they used the translation. But  that is knocked down by the quotations of Tucker and Rawle at the time and the fact that in none of their writings can any of the authors of the Constitution or such other leaders as Adams and Jefferson or for that matter John Jay be found using Natural Born to refer to parents.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMims 
          Replying to:  Re “the Congressional Research Service…”
          Was proven by
          Leo Donofrio to have deliberately sent misinformation and outright lies
          to Congress; and, is therefore, not acceptable as a source.”
          Answer: I do not accept that as “proof,” and neither does the US Congress, not one of whose members has called for a Congressional investigation of Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status. 
           Apuzzo, by the way, also claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii and probably was born in a foreign country, which shows (1) his motives, and (2) his lack of sanity. 

          And it was not only the Congressional Research Service. It was the Congressional Research Service and the Economist Magazine and the Wall Street Journal and Black’s Law Dictionary (which I point out is a contemporary authority on the law) and senators Hatch and Graham, and former senator Fred Thompson and the ten appeals courts, and the US Supreme Court when on October 1 it turned down an appeal of one of those ten appeals court rulings.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
          Re: ” (11) John A. Bingham,
          (R-Ohio) U.S. Congressman, March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.,
          1291(1866) (commenting on Civil Rights Act of 1866 said that “every
          human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents
          not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of
          your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”);”
          Bingham also said:

          “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the
          Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born
          citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg.
          2212 (1869)”
          It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.
          More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment.
          He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment.
          He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
          Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.
          And here is what Lyman Trumball said:
          “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the
          United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven
          years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to
          be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born
          citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and
          it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person
          is a citizen of the country in which he is born. I read from
          Paschale’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: ‘All persons born in the
          allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born
          in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth
          and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it
          is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two
          exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The
          children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the
          powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation,
          are property, and not persons.” —Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st
          Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMims 
           Re: ” was intended to exclude from its operation
          children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign
          States born within the United States”);
          Answer: Well, duh. Who said that they were included. The meaning of Natural Born in the common law also excludes the children of ministers, consuls, etc.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMims 
          Re: ” (16) Ex parte
          Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879)”
          Birthers rarely mention http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/evidence-found-that-american-common-law-defined-whether-a-child-born-on-us-soil-of-non-citizen-parents-was-a-natural-born-citizen-lynch-v-clarke-1844/, a case from 1844 in which a judge found the U.S. born child of two non-citizens a natural born citizen.
          Ex parte Reynolds was a state court ruling (as was Lynch v. Carke, of course),  and it was, btw, before the Wong Kim Ark case which ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.
          The fact that an Arkansas court in 1879 thought that the phrase Natural Born Citizen existed in Vattel’s book before the Constitution was written is not proof that it did exist at the time. It didn’t.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMims 
          Re: ” there necessarily
          was no general, independent and separate common law of the United
          States, nor has there ever been. Wheaton v. Peter, 8 Pet. 591, 658.
          [p710]‘
          Sure, agreed. But did the meaning of the Natural Born part of Natural Born Citizen come from the common law or from some theory of natural law (and there are dozens of them) or did it come from the common law? 
          Answer: It certainly did not come from a translation of Vattel’s French word “indigens” and the use of that without the founders telling us that they had translated Vattel’s French word and used that. And, if the founder had indeed intended to switch from the common law meaning, the one that  they were familiar with, to an entirely new meaning based on “Natural Law”—they would have told us.

        • JesseTMims

          smrstrauss
          Here is proof that Black’s Law Dictionary’s (ninth edition) definition of natural born citizen does NOT match current U.S. Law.
          It’s definition of natural-born
          citizen is: “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
          It’s definition of native-born citizen is: “Born within the territorial jurisdiction
          of
          a country.”
          It’s definition of naturalized
          citizen is: “A foreign-born person who attains citizenship by law.”
          As you can see, although Black’s assigns a distinctive definition to naturalized citizen, it offers essentially no meaningful difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen.
          However, according to three separate interpretations of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Law BY the current Immigration and Naturalization Service ITSELF, distinct differences are recognized between native born citizens and natural born citizens. In one of those interpretations, differences between those two AND naturalized citizens are recognized. 
          1. “The
          repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply
          to a NATIVE- AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN woman who expatriated herself by
          marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of
          expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation.” [Emphasis added]
          2. “Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.  
          The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of       NATIVE-BORN OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” [Emphasis added]
          3. “The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL BORN-CITIZEN naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” [Emphasis added]
          See http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

        • JesseTMims

          smrstraussJesseTMims
          Re “But did the meaning of the Natural Born part of Natural Born
          Citizen come from the common law or from some theory of natural law
          (and there are dozens of them) or did it come from the common law?”
          Your question is illogical because the definition of “natural born citizen” is not merely the sum total of the definitions of the three words that make up the whole.
          As for “common law,” there is common law and there is British Common Law.
          SCOTUS never referred to Vattel in their decision issued in Minor v Happersett; therefore, the Court’s legally binding holding in that case cannot be said to have originated from Vattel; but, rather, from their own direct understanding of the Framer’s meaning of natural born citizen.

        • JesseTMims

          smrstraussJesseTMims
          Re “The fact that an Arkansas court in 1879 thought that the phrase Natural
          Born Citizen existed in Vattel’s book before the Constitution was
          written is not proof that it did exist at the time. It didn’t.”
          Your comment makes two assumptions that are incorrect.
          One, that the Framers could not read French. MOST could; although, they could not speak the language fluently. Some, such as Ben Franklin was fluent in French
          Two, that there were no English versions of Vattel’s Laws of Nations before the Constitution was written. Actually, there were a number of versions printed in English before that time.
          There were two different ones in 1787 alone. See http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6428103M/The_law_of_nations_or_Principles_of_the_law_of_nature_applied_to_the_conduct_and_affairs_of_nations_
          A second 1787 version: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3171377?lookfor=author:%22Vattel,%20Emer%20de,%201714-1767%22&offset=19&max=25
          There was also one published in 1760 as well as others.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
          Re: ” As you can see, although Black’s assigns a distinctive definition to
          naturalized citizen, it offers essentially no meaningful difference
          between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen.”
          There is, duh, no difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen because they are essentially synonyms. ALL native born citizens are natural born citizens, and the difference is that Natural Born was the popular term at the time and Native Born is  the popular term today. 
          Naturalized citizes are, as Blacks’ says, foreigners who have been naturalized. NO citizens born on US soil are considered foreigners, they are citizens at birth and hence are not naturalized. Since they are not naturalized citizens, they fall under the other category, Natural Born Citizens.
          The Wall Street Journal puts it this way: ” Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a
          “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural
          born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this
          notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical
          in meaning.”

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMims smrstrauss  
          There is NO legally binding hold ing Minor v. Happersett. None at all. The ruling never says that two citizen parents are REQUIRED. Nor does it say that even one citizen parent is REQUIRED. It does say that if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen then it was never doubted that you were a Natural Born Citizen. But it did not say that both of the two possible ways were required. 
          If it had ruled that it was never doubted that if you wore suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up, would that be a ruling that you have to wear both suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up?

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
          Re: ” One, that the Framers could not read French. MOST could; although, they
          could not speak the language fluently. Some, such as Ben Franklin was
          fluent in French.
          Answer: Yes some of them could read French. But it is nutty to think that they did their own translation of Vattel’s word “indignes” into the phrase Natural Born Citizen and used that translation without telling anyone. (And, btw, when the US Constitution is translated into French, they never translate Natural Born Citizen using Vattel’s word “indignes.”) 
           The translation is therefore by no means certain. So, if the writers of the Constitution had translated it that way, they would surely have explained that they did so. BUT THEY DIDN’T.

          Re: “Two, that there were no English versions of
          Vattel’s Laws of Nations before the Constitution was written. Actually,
          there were a number of versions printed in English before that time.”
           Answer: Please do not try to deliberately mislead the reader. I never said that there were not English language translations. I said, and it is true, that none of them used the phrase “Natural Born Citizen.” All of the translations before the Constitution was written used Vattel’s French word “indignes,” saying that “indignes” required two citizen parents.
          So the writers of the US Constitution would have had to have made their own translation, and translated “indignes” as Natural Born Citizen—and the idea that they did so without telling anyone that they did is nutty.

        • JesseTMims

          smrstraussJesseTMims
          Re “There is, duh, no difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen because they are essentially synonyms.”Yes, there is a difference; and, no, they are not synonymous…
          See “The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born.”
          http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/
          Re “The Wall Street Journal…”
          …says a lot of things that are not true. Besides, the WSJ has zero authority in determining the definition of any word or term in the Constitution.

        • JesseTMims

          smrstraussJesseTMims
          Re “There is NO legally binding holding Minor v. Happersett. None at all”
          Of course, there is… And, you KNOW there is, Obama enabler…
          See the following:
          “How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-obamas-enablers-mislead-public-on.html
          “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
          http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/
          “US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/
          “Minor v. Happersett Revisited.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=HAPPERSETT
          “Multiple
          Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme
          Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On
          Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
          No. The Minor v. Happersett case never said that two citizen parents are REQUIRED to be a NBC, and it did not even say that one citizen parent is required. It does not use the word required at all.
          All that it did was to list the two possible ways of being a NBC, birth in the country and birth to citizen parents, and then it said that if you had both of them, it was never doubted that you were a NBC. That was because, duh, if you had both of them then you would have had to have had the one that was required, whichever of the two were required. Or if two were indeed required, then you would have had that also—but it did not say that having both was required, nor did it say which of the two possibilities was required. And then it said that fortunately it did not have to rule on the matter, which indicates, duh, that it was not a ruling.
           Here is what The Economist says about the matter:
          “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html.
          In that ruling, the Court wrote, “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In
          other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and
          was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it
          deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which
          does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts
          affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United
          States.”
          Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the
          United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const.,
          amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in
          effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
          169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
          Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court)
          ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and
          the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born
          within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for
          Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their
          parents.”
          Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well
          settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born
          citizens.”
          Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state
          or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama
          is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his
          father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then
          applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or
          may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter
          been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to
          reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this
          issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting
          for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a
          ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
          Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States
          Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United
          States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a
          citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the
          issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates
          for the office of President of the United States have come to the same
          conclusion.”
          Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the
          extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural
          born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in
          agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely,
          that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural
          born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the
          citizenship of their parents.”
          Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona
          courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing
          the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. ,
          39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully
          supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the
          Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. …
          Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162
          (1874), does not hold otherwise”
          Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana
          Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar
          to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct.
          App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was
          ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are
          natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. …
          This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
          Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: “While the court has no
          doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of
          Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the
          court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born
          citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are
          citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents”
          in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial
          decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related
          issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v.
          Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the
          phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of
          independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen”
          is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the
          status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship
          subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”
          Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: “The issue of the definition of
          “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States
          Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it,
          that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. “

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
           Re “There is, duh, no difference between a native born citizen and a
          natural born citizen because they are essentially synonyms.”Yes, there is a
          difference; and, no, they are not synonymous… “
            
          Actually, they still ARE synonyms. Leo Donofrio’s OPINION of what the INS
          says is still only his opinion.  It turns out that the INS lists both native
          born and natural born and, because of this, Leo claims that there is a
          difference. BUT, the INS never said that there is a difference, and it certainly
          did not say what that difference was if it were. So, the fact that the INS
          listed both was just a way to be absolutely clear. 
          BTW, did you know that at the
          time of the FIRST World War, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was so commonly
          known that in asking men to register for the draft, the Selective Service asked
          them whether or not they were citizens, and then, if they were, whether or not
          they were naturalized or NATURAL BORN—and there were only two possibilities.
          You were either naturalized or Natural Born, hence Natural Born was (and
          continues to be) a synonym for native born.
           
          And, of course, we have the examples of Tucker and Rawle who used the  term
          Natural Born Citizen in their books just the way that a Native Born Citizen
          would be used.
           
          Re “The Wall Street Journal…”
          Re: “…says a lot of things that are not
          true. Besides, the WSJ has zero authority in determining the definition of any
          word or term in the Constitution.”
           
          Answer: One reply would be to say simply that Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo
          say things that are not true. Another would be to say that while the WSJ is not
          an authority, it is another well-known publication that has commented on the
          subject, along with The Economist, that said:
           
          “The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875
          Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. In that ruling, the Court wrote,
          “…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 distinct from aliens of 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 those doubts.” In other words, Minor did
          not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the
          plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the
          constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and
          lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the
          United States.”
            
          I merely added these popular summaries of contemporary thinking on the
          meaning of Natural Born Citizen to Meese and Black’s Law Dictionary and senators
          Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and the TEN appeals courts.
          (And not one of them has pointed to the Minor v. Happersett case as being a
          ruling on presidential eligibility and ALL of the cases have pointed to  the
          Wong Kim Ark ruling as being a ruling on presidential eligibility and that it
          said that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen except for
          the children of foreign diplomats.)

        • JesseTMims

          smrstraussJesseTMims
          Re “it is nutty to think that they did their own translation of Vattel’s
          word “indignes” into the phrase Natural Born Citizen and used that
          translation without telling anyone. (And, btw, when the US Constitution
          is translated into French, they never translate Natural Born Citizen
          using Vattel’s word “indignes.”)  The translation is therefore by no means certain.”
          And also re your comment elsewhere “There is, duh, no difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen because they are essentially synonyms.”
          If you want to play that game, that is fine with me.
          If you go here (http://birthers.org/img/Vattel.jpg), you will find a photograph of the original French translation of Vattel’s 1758 Law of Nations,
          Chapter 19, Section 212, page 499. The second sentence of that page reads as follows: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens.”
          Now, go to http://translate.google.com/ and copy and paste the above French sentence into the box, set it to translate from French to English and you get the English translation; which, is “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of citizen parents.”
          You can also go here (http://www.bing.com/translator) and the translation is “The natural, or natives, are those who are born in the country of citizen parents.”

          Now, you can translate “Les naturels, ou indigenes” to mean “native born” if you wish. But according to Vattel’s FIRST FRENCH TRANSLATION OF HIS ORIGINAL book, neither Obama, McCain, Rubio, Cruz, or Jindal meet the requirement that one must be “born in the country of citizen parents.”
          So even if native born citizen and natural born citizen WERE synonymous, it would STILL mean that in order to be president, one must be born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMimssmrstrauss 
           
          What you have said is a very long admission that the French word
          “indigines” was not translated as Natural Born CITIZEN before the Constitution
          was written.
            
           It says, as you have pointed out: “The natural, or natives, are those who
          are born in the country of citizen parents.”
            
           In America that would mean that the natural residents, or the INDIANS, are born in the country of
          citizen parents. 
          And, of course, the Constitution does not say that the
          president must be a native, and it certainly does not say that the president
          must be an “indignes;” it says that he must be a Natural Born Citizen, and as you
          have shown, Vattel’s French word “indignes” was not translated as Natural Born
          Citizen before the Constitution was written.
            
          This does not disprove the possibility that the writers of  the US
          Constitution translated Vattel’s French “indignes” as Natural Born Citizen and
          used their own translation. But it makes it highly unlikely because, duh, if
          they had done  that—-and not used the term that lawyers were familiar with
          from the common law—-they would surely have TOLD US.
           
          Re: “according to Vattel’s FIRST FRENCH TRANSLATION OF HIS ORIGINAL book,
          neither Obama, McCain, Rubio, Cruz, or Jindal meet the requirement that one must
          be “born in the country of citizen parents.”
           
          Answer: Since Vattel says that an “indignes” must have two citizen parents
          and be born in the country of citizen parents, it is likely that Obama, Rubio,
          Cruz and Jindal are NOT “indignes.” (WHOW!!!) But the US Constitution does not
          say that you have to be an “indignes.'” It says you have to be a Natural Born
          Citizen.
            
          Far far worse for your case is that Vattel himself NEVER says that the
          leader of a country should be an “indignes” or even a citizen.
           
          I’m waiting for your shock to wear down. I repeat, Vattel never said that
          the leader of a country should be an “indignes” or even a citizen, and in fact
          he gives several examples of countries picking their leaders from the nobility
          of other countries (even those that did not speak the same language), and he
          never took the opportunity to say that doing that was a bad thing.
            
          So, to Vattel, the  term “indignes” is merely a description of a certain
          kind of resident of the country, perhaps an Indian, perhaps a citizen—but not
          one who has special rights to be the leader. 
          IF the writers of the US
          Constitution had intended the president to be a translation of Vattel’s
          “indignes”—and to require that the president be an “indignes,” even though
          Vattel never said that such a requirements was necessary for the top leader or
          any leader of a country, then the would have said so.
            
          Only if the writers of the US Constitution had said that “we take the term
          from a translation of Vattel, and we mean two citizen parents because we are
          worried about the effect of foreign parents on their US-born children,” would
          the two-parent theory hold up, and there is nothing like that AT ALL.  
          Here is a link to an online searchable version of Vattel. Try to find any
          place in it where Vattel recommends that a leader of the country should be a
          “Natural Born Citizen”—-or even a citizen.
            
          http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2246
           And also re your comment elsewhere “There is, duh, no difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen because they are essentially synonyms.”
           They are, as I said, essentially synonyms, as the quotations by Tucker and Rawle make clear.

        • smrstrauss

          JesseTMims smrstrauss  
          However, none of those translations of Vattel used the phrase “Natural Born Citizen.” So, if the writers of the US Constitution were using Vattel, they would have had to have translated it themselves. They could have done this, but the chances of their having done it and not telling us are remarkably low. 
          They were mainly LAWYERS and JUSTICES, and the common meaning of Natural Born that they knew came from the common law. If they had switched from the common meaning, the common law meaning, to Vattel, they would have told us.
          Well, they did not tell us. In fact, never in their writings did they ever write that they used Vattel or that they had switched from the common law definition to one based on parents, or that they considered that the US-born children of foreigners were not likely to be as good citizens as the US-born children of US citizens—or that we should distrust them, or anything like that at all.

      • smrstrauss
    • smrstrauss
  • http://jeremyintucson.blogspot.com/ ConservativeINTucson

    Senator Ted Cruz is a Super Star.  He’s the kind of Guy Who America Needs and Conservatives Want to be President one day.  I will have to side with SMRSTRAUSS and the Washington Examiner.  It is clear from the evidence they presented that Senator Ted Cruz IS a U.S. Natural Born Citizen and therefore Clearly eligible to be President.  I Hope he considers running at some point.  Senator Cruz would set the bar that much higher for the other candidates who wish to challenge him in the primaries.  Senator Cruz is Young, Articulate, Intelligent, Principled, Passionate and Charming.
    Please Read some of my other Conservative Posts at:  http://jeremyintucson.blogspot.com  Thank You!  God Bless.

  • smrstrauss

    @Sulli159  
    The phrase Natural Born Citizen did not appear in any English language translation of Vattel’s French until TEN years after the Constitution was written. In contrast, the phrase Natural Born had been used in the common law for three hundred years BEFORE the Constitution was written.

  • smrstrauss

    @dmacleo 
     The phrase Natural Born Citizen did not appear in any English language
    translation of Vattel’s French until TEN years after the Constitution
    was written. In contrast, the phrase Natural Born had been used in the
    common law for three hundred years BEFORE the Constitution was written.  
    And Vattel is not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise.

  • smrstrauss

    @Diana Forthe Constitution  
    The Supreme Court has never made such a ruling. However, in the Wong Kim Ark Supreme  Court case it did rule that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats. Some birther lawyers say that the Wong Kim Ark case did not rule that, but it did. In fact, the fact that the US Supreme Court ruled precisely that and that it is the key ruling on presidential eligibility has now been confirmed by TEN appeals court cases, and not one has said that the Minor v. Happersett ruling even applies.