Natural Born Citizen

[randyg45]

I'm a layman; please be gentle lol... I hope this is the proper forum.

Donald Trump got me interested in the whole "birther" issue.

What kept me interested is that I cannot find a definition of "natural born citizen" from the federal courts.

The definition given by M. de Vattel in Law of Nations is the only one I can find that was available when the Constitution was written....

The definition assumed by most people who have commented on the issue seems to be "born in the United States"; but I do not think the Founders meant for an "anchor baby" to be eligible to the Presidency. In any case, Marbury v. Madison seems to me and at least one commentator to say that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" cannot mean the same thing: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it".

So. Has SCOTUS defined "natural born citizen"? Any other court? If not, what's the best guess as to what the phrase actually means?

 

[army judge]

The definition you seek is in our constitution.
The supremes have not been called upon to further define "natural born citizen".

Here is the definition you seek, straight from the founders' mouths.

Article 1:
Section 1.5 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.

 

[mightymoose]

The term "natural born citizen" is not clearly defined, but we do have laws governing citizenship that can guide the interpretation.
For the most part, a person that is a natural born American citizen is one born within the geographic boundaries of the US and its territories--- but also meeting the citizenship requirements of the 14th Amendment and other citizenship laws.
If you want to read up on some interesting info on the whole "birther" issue you will find THOROUGH articles at wnd.com and within the pages of Whistleblower magazine.

An interesting case I often refer to regarding illegal aliens and the 14th Amendment is Elk v Wilkins. In that case, and others referenced within, the courts defined the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which the policy of later administrations strayed from. Another case, US v Wong Kim Ark, danced around the issue but involved the child of migrant workers legally present in California. Many people point ot it to justify illegal alien births, but the circumstances do not match cleanly.

Read over Elk. I believe that for the same reason that the Indians were not deemed American citizens (they belonged to a foreign jurisdiction although born within the geographic US and can not will themselves to be citizens without a formal process and acceptance by the government) neither are illegal aliens or their children American citizens.

Congress later passed legislation... the Indian Citizenship Actof 1924... or was it 25?.... that finally declared Indians to be citizens, but no such legislation exists for other foreign nationals in the US. Even today Indians are not citizens per the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, but rather by the Citizenship Act.

The matter will get to the court again someday, and something will hit a fan- it is just a question of whether it will be sucked in or blown out.