Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
No. Natural born citizen, as used by the founders and as used by the courts, was understood to mean born in the US to two citizen parents.
|
That is not correct. many founders were involved in the passage of the 1790 Naturalization Act which stipulated that children born of Americans overseas were natural born citizens. however, the children born of Amrerican citizens that had never lived in America and born over seas was not.
Further in Lynch vs Clark, (SCOTUS) held that a child born in America of non-Citizens was a natural born citizen. This was sited as prescient in US vs Wong
Lynch actually didn't say "in the US" but rather a wider "dominons of the US.
thus citizens of Porto Rico are "natural born"
both of those cases occurred before 1900.
in the 1930s Perkins vs Elg. stated that a person born in America and raised "overseas" was natural born and eligible to be President.
SCOTUS as part of the decision used opinion from an 1860s Sec. of State.
Chester A. Arthur was President of the USA. He was born in America as the child of an American MOTHER and an Irish FATHER. The fater became naturalized when C.A.A. was 14.
While there is some murkieness around the subject, there was never ANY clear intent by the framers, AND courts have consistently for 200 years indicated something very different from "born in America to 2 Citizen Parents".
It is just inaccurate to say that.
From recent comments from the courts from local to SCOTUS, "standing" is something that has yet to be defined. "natural born" may very well be the purview of congress.
Linear Mode
