You and I have reached a fork in the road. Your researched the words as I asked and I appreciate your research. (Although your citations are nonexistent, I believe you researched the term.) Unfortunately, you arrived at a different conclusion and opinion regarding the words "Natural Born" than I did.
Though I did not
formally cite my sources, they were in fact cited. I told you every document where I got the quotes. I assumed everyone was capable of finding these documents, all are on the internet and all are published. The Constitution is online in probably several million places.
Its fine to have a separate opinion. But you have given
no evidence, not even an opinion in your own words. Your first post you cut and pasted from a website, titled "The Betrayal," which is obviously a biased website with an agenda. In fact, when you click on the link to the article, it says "Not Found." I guessing it was removed because it was made up.
If you look closer at the document you posted it says it is by the AP (Associated Press), yet at the bottom it says "LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS THE MEDIA WON’T EMBRACE!" and is signed by someone calling themselves "American Grand Jury." So how could it be from the AP, but the news media won't embrace it? I think this is a bogus story, which is probably why it was pulled.
In your next post, again you gave no evidence, nor even an explanation of you opinion. Again you just cut and pasted a story. This time the website is called "The Obama File," and is again, an extremely biased "news" source. Not only was this article biased, but very
bigoted, and had nothing to do with his citizenship or his politics, it was only bad mouthing Obama and his family personally. I'm surprised you would use such a blatantly prejudiced article.
When I posted my comments, that you asked me to post, you did not respond to them. You dismissed them by saying "your citations are nonexistent." They were cited, just not in the way you want. You asked me to do research, but it doesn't seem you did any yourself, unless you call those "news" pieces you posted "research." Here is a short list of articles I found useful, and relevant to the discussion:
Jill A. Pryor. “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.”
The Yale Law Review 97 (April 1988), 881-899.
James Hart. “Mr. Hoover’s Eligibility for the Presidency.” Virginia Law Review 15 (March 1929), 476-478.
Gordon I. Ginsberg. “Citizenship: Expatriation: Distinction Between Naturalized and Natural Born Citizens.”
Michigan Law Review 50 (April 1952), 926-929.
John W. Guendelsberger. “Access to Citizenship for Children Born within the State to Foreign Parents.”
The American Journal of Comparative Law 40 (Spring 1992), 379-429.
Steven S. Bell. “Expatriation: Constitutional and Non-Constitutional Citizenship.”
California Law Review 60 (November 1972), 1587-1614.
All of these articles make it clear that there is NO legal definition of what "natural-born citizen" means. They also discuss the myriad problems in tackling the subject.
That is great, we don't have to agree, but you have yet to state why you disagree, nor have you posted any credible evidence to support your opinion.
I don't know why they used that phrase, and neither does anyone else. My opinion is that "natural-born citizen" means nothing more than someone is a citizen at birth.
I will use some Congressional Documents to show you why I hold this opinion.
Serial Set Vol. No. 13072-1, Session Vol. No.1-1
93rd Congress, 2nd Session
H.Doc. 341
Title: Out American Government. What Is It? How Does It Function? 185 questions and answers. June 17, 1974. -- Ordered to be printed.
This document, published by Congress in 1974 gives a series of FAQs about the government, here is one:
"147. What qualifications are prescribed for the President?
He must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and for at least 14 years a resident of the United States. The question as to whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural-born citizen,” in the sense of this clause, has been frequently debated. The answer depends upon whether the definition of “citizens of the United States” in section 1 of the 14th amendment is to be given and exclusive or inclusive interpretation."
This shows that the question was till being debated in 1974. Congress had no answer as to what a "natural-born citizen" was, and nothing has changed since then.
Here is another Congressional Document from 1974:
Serial Set Vol. No. 13059, Session Vol. No.3
93rd Congress, 2nd Session
S.Rpt. 1423
Title: Constitutional amendments. Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, made by its Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments pursuant to S. Res. 56, section 5, Ninety-third Congress, second session. December 19, 1974. -- Ordered to be printed
"Under clause 5 or section 1 of article II of the Constitution, eligibility for the office of the President is limited to “natural-born” citizens of the United States. The purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 137, introduced by Senator FONG, is to expand the eligibility clause for the office of the President to include all citizens of the United States, naturalized or natural-born, providing that they have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years prior to being elected to the office of the President. The adoption of such an amendment to the Constitution would clarify the meaning of the phrase “natural-born” citizen and eliminate the built-in discrimination against naturalized citizens, thus opening the highest office of the land to all citizens. The subcommittee intends to give this proposal careful consideration and to hold hearings on it during the second session of the 93rd Congress."
This Senate resolution obviously did not pass, but it is interesting none the less. Notice that it only refers to 2 types of citizens "naturalized" or "natural-born." You will see that terminology not just here, but in many other documents. It is interesting to note that these are the only 2 terms in existence when speaking of citizenship. My opinion is that "natural-born" therefore refers to every citizen that gained their citizenship at birth, instead of later by being naturalized.
Here is another interesting document:
Serial Set Vol. No. 2886, Session Vol. No.2
51st Congress, 2nd Session
H.Rpt. 3472
Title: Report of the Select Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, and Testimony taken by the Committee on Immigration of the Senate and the Select Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives under concurrent resolution of March 12, 1890. Reported to the House by Mr. Owen, of Indiana, January 15, 1891.
Congress said "The question of naturalization, which means the clothing of an alien with the rights, powers, and duties of a natural-born citizen…." Again, this seems to show that there are only categories of citizenship, those that are naturalized and those that are natural born - or recieved citizenship at birth.
The next case refers to parentage:
Serial Set Vol. No. 2513, Session Vol. No.10
50th Congress, 1st Session
S.Exec.Doc. 162
Title: Message from the President of the United States, transmitting report of the Secretary of State in answer to Senate resolution of April 12, 1888, relative to the impressment of John Fruchier in the military service of France. May 8, 1888. -- Read and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed.
In a letter from McLane, an American diplomat to Flourens, his French counterpart, they are discussing the impressment of U.S. citizens of French ancestry into French military service:
"I could let the matter rest there, but it would then be the painful duty of my Government to advise its citizens of French origin that it is powerless to prevent their being arrested and impressed into the French military service should they visit France, and that alone among all natural-born Americans those who happen to have a French father do not find under the jurisdiction of the French Republic the protection extended everywhere to every American citizen."
"The cases of the two first named [Pierre Arbios and John Fruchier] are almost identical. Both emigrated to the United States when minors; both established themselves there in a permanent manner and regularly acquired American citizenship, although in different ways; [Pierre] Arbios by the fact of the naturalization of his father; Fruchier by direct naturalization. As for [Albert] Gendrot, he is a natural-born American, whose father is a Frenchman. Coming to France provided with all their papers and with the purpose of making only a temporary sojourn there, they were arrested, imprisoned, and brought before the military authorities, who sent them all three to the army…"
Here it says that Gendrot was considered a "natural-born citizen" by the American government, even though his father was a French citizen. The first paragraph suggests that one is "natural-born" regardless of the parents citizenship status because it wouldn't be fair to treat them differently, as they have the same rights as other natural-born citizens.
Here is another from 1860 which further illustrates my point:
Serial Set Vol. No. 1033, Session Vol. No.11
36th Congress, 1st Session
S.Exec.Doc. 38
Title: Message of the President of the United States, communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, information in regard to the compulsory enlistment of American citizens in the Army of Prussia, &c.
"The exercise of the right of naturalization, and the consequent recognition of the principle of expatriation, are not confined to the government of the United States. There is not a country in Europe, I believe, at the present moment, where the law does not authorize the naturalization of foreigners in one form or other. Indeed, in some of these countries this law is more liberal than our own towards foreigners.
The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him naturalization? I answer: All the rights, privileges, and immunities, which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent, with the single qualification that, under the Constitution, “no person, except a natural-born citizen, is eligible to the office of President.” With this exception, the naturalized citizen, from and after the date of his naturalization, both at home and abroad, is placed upon the very same footing with the native citizen. He is neither in a better nor a worse condition. If a native citizen chooses to take up his residence in a foreign country for the purpose of advancing his fortune, or promoting his happiness, he is, whilst there, bound to obey its municipal laws equally with those who have lived in it all their lives. "
Here, congress again only iterates that there are 2 types of citizens, those that are natural born (or native born), and those naturalized. Here it says all naturalized citizens have the same rights as natural-born citizens, except the right to be President. It doesn't address people born of foreign parents, or people with dual citizenship, or anything else - it only recognizes 2 types of citizens, those who were born citizens (regardless of parentage) and those who became citizens later.
Again, here is yet another Congressional document that shows the parentage does not matter in the making of a "natural-born citizen."
"Major General Banks to Mr. Coppell
Headquarters Department of the Gulf
New Orleans, June 8, 1864
SIR: I have the honor to inform you that there are difficulties connected with the modification of the neutral oath suggested by you, which deters me from adopting it at present.
There are many American citizens in this department, born of English and French parents, who, to escape conscription, claim foreign protection under the belief that the descendants of a subject do not lose the nationality of their ancestry. Such persons have not only participated in the elections of this country, but have availed themselves of all the privileges of natural-born citizens. It seems but just that those who claim the privilege of neutrality should be required to make the declaration that they have not exercised the privileges of citizens of the United States."
This document is about making those that come in the country taking an oath of neutrality during the Civil War.
It talks specifically about the parentage of natural-born citizens. Again, it suggests that foreign parentage is not a bar to being considered a "natural-born citizen."
I could go on and on with this, but I made my point. According to numerous government documents, the government has not defined "natural-born citizen," but there are many documents that attest that foreign parentage is not a factor in determining whether someone is a natural born citizen. Also, in everything I have read, there are only references to 2 types of citizens, naturalized and natural-born. We know what naturalized means, so that would suggest that natural-born means anyone born an American citizen, not just those with specific parental citizenship. The documen I posted the other day concerning John McCain further suggests that one does not even have to be born in the United States to be considered natural born, only the child of a citizen.
I would love to hear answers to my questions, as well as your personal opinion, and any documentation you have to support your position. I would like you to actually respond to the documents I posted, and if you can refute them with evidence. I also want to hear your opinion on the evidence, and why you hold that opinion. So far there has been nothing. I won't bother responding until you actually post something worthwhile.