From "The Law of Nations" (1758) a text used in law contemporaneous with the writing of the Constitution:
§ 212. 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.
While one would hope that this is the way it would be interpreted if it ever came down to it, unfortunately the constitution it self does not define what a natural born citizen is, which has left it up to the supreme court.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
While I would agree that this is certainly how it should be interpreted (having a parent who is also a citizen) for the office of presidency, given the current climate of illegals having anchor babies, I doubt the supreme court would ever agree that this is the correct interpretation. The current laws on citizenship are just not strict enough for this interpretation to hold.
It is called original intent. We interpret the Constitution according to the language and definitions used at the time it was written. To do otherwise is to indulge in the "living document" nonsense that finds "rights" and "powers" that are nowhere written down. Unless, of course, you want the Constitution to be interpreted ad lib in accordance with prevailing political correctness. We have a choice, and we need to argue in favor of the truth. I hope you are in tune with that.
From "The Law of Nations" (1758) a text used in law contemporaneous with the writing of the Constitution:
§ 212. 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.
While one would hope that this is the way it would be interpreted if it ever came down to it, unfortunately the constitution it self does not define what a natural born citizen is, which has left it up to the supreme court. Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. While I would agree that this is certainly how it should be interpreted (having a parent who is also a citizen) for the office of presidency, given the current climate of illegals having anchor babies, I doubt the supreme court would ever agree that this is the correct interpretation. The current laws on citizenship are just not strict enough for this interpretation to hold.
It is called original intent. We interpret the Constitution according to the language and definitions used at the time it was written. To do otherwise is to indulge in the "living document" nonsense that finds "rights" and "powers" that are nowhere written down. Unless, of course, you want the Constitution to be interpreted ad lib in accordance with prevailing political correctness. We have a choice, and we need to argue in favor of the truth. I hope you are in tune with that.