What is your concept of the US Constitution's requirement that the President be a "natural born" citizen?

The first Presidents of the USA were not natural born citizens since they were British citizens without representation when they were born in this nation 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker.
1. Anybody born to US citizens in this nation or around the world is considered a US citizen. This includis the children of diplomats, military service people, and others stationed overseas.
2. Children born in this nation to recognized and legal aliens are also natural born citizens. I was born in October 1956 to two British citizens living in this nation. I had dual citizenship and a British passport until I turned 18 and enlisted in the US Army when I became a US citizen coincident with my enlistment.

Having two parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth definitely makes you natural born U.S. citizen. Having one parent U.S. makes one a dual citizen and requires renouncing citizenship from the other country and also not natural born. The only exception would be serving your country out of the U.S., any child born in that case should be considered natural born. The intent of the founders was to limit foreign influence on our country and they were right minded. What about both alien parents, certainly if one were born on U.S. soil to illegal aliens they would not be a natural born citizen.

Okay. Here is is in a nutshell. Our Constitution makes a distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen", stating that a "citizen" is qualified to be a member of Congress but only a "natural born citizen" is qualified to be President. There is a very good, common sense, reason for this distinction: Our founding fathers had just risked everything they held dear to win their freedom from Great Britain and they didn't want to make any mistakes that might cause them to lose that freedom. Since the position of President included being Commander-in-Chief of the military, they needed to make certain that the President would be completely loyal to the country and they were concerned that someone born to a foreign parent might share loyalties with that parent and, therefore, that parent's country. So they specifically stated in the Constitution that a President must be a "natural born citizen" because at that time both of your parents had to be citizens in order for you to be a "natural born citizen." It was just common sense to them that someone whose parents were both citizens would most likely not have loyalties to another country. Their reasoning is just as valid today as it was then, especially when we see throngs of foreigners coming into our country, refusing to assimilate, placing the precepts of their religion above our Constitution, and attempting to implement their own religious legal system that is incompatible with our Constitution.

Under our Constitution, Barack Obama would never be qualified to be President; nor would Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. We've been betrayed by our politicians who swore an oath to uphold our Constitution and by our media whose job it is to keep them honest. This coming from someone who wants Ted Cruz to be President.

I think it is the most important criteria for selecting anyone for this position of power and trust. The current guy doesn't cut it at all. At best he's half Caucasian and half Indonesian being raised in Jakarta. Still have no idea how they pulled this off.

Born to at least one US Parent! Many Military children are born overseas and they still should qualify for the Presidency!

To be a natural born citizen it is necessary for your father to be a US citizen on the day of your birth within the United States. Since there has been no Constitutional Convention of States to modify this Presidential requirement we must use the original concept of the term. Here are a couple of comments by the Supreme Court Justices that identify what NBC means. (These are not the only 2)

The Supreme Court reference the definition of natural born citizen in 1814 in the opinion The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814). Justice J. Washington of the Supreme Court stated,

"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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Justice J. Washington translated the French text of Monsieur De Vattel's The Low of Nations Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph Number 212 himself according to the records of the time.

In the Supreme Court decision Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U. S. 242 (1830)8 we find that the Court directly references the The Law of Nation in the following paragraphs and the concepts of that text.

If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.

It is of importance here that it should be held in view that we are considering political, not moral, obligations. The latter are universal and immutable, but the former must frequently vary according to political circumstances. It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.

Natural born citizen means to have been born to a parent that is a United States citizen, be it within the United States or abroad.

Here is a list of attempted changes to the requirement to be natural born to hold office as POTUS. All of there Bills are easily verified in the Congressional Record.

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 - “Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.”
– Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
– Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act - Declares that the term "natural born Citizen" in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V - natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee -- All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

It is quite a bit more complex than just, "Where were you born," isn't it? Here are some Supreme Court findings that articulate the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen." I've entered some links to the Supreme Court site, if you care to pursue the issue further.

The Supreme Court reference the definition of natural born citizen in 1814 in the opinion The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814)6. Justice J. Washington of the Supreme Court stated
"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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Justice J. Washington translated the French text of Monsieur De Vattel's The Low of Nations Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph Number 212 himself according to the records of the time.

In the Supreme Court decision Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U. S. 242 (1830)8 we find that the Court directly references the The Law of Nation in the following paragraphs and the concepts of that text.
If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.

It is of importance here that it should be held in view that we are considering political, not moral, obligations. The latter are universal and immutable, but the former must frequently vary according to political circumstances. It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.

The Supreme Court in Scott v Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)9 Justice Daniel in a separate opinion quoted The Law of Nations extensively in his pre-Amendment 14 opinion.
Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:
Nations or States are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their mutual strength. Such a society has her affairs and her interests, she deliberates and takes resolutions in common, thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself.
Again, in the first chapter of the first book of the Treatise just quoted, the same writer, after

http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,indigene
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZX2.html

repeating his definition of a State, proceeds to remark that, from the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a public authority to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty.
Again, this writer remarks: "The authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic, or the State."

By this same writer it is also said:
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 society [p477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.
Again:
I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.
Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.
Once again the term “natural born citizen” is distinctly referenced.

The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-16810 Chief Justice Waite wrote
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. 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.

In United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898) the Supreme Court
That in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China, upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steampship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of ustoms, upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
That, after his said return, the said Wong Kim Ark remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until the year 1894, when he again departed for China upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto in the month of August,

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

1895, and applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land; and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen of the United States. That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him there from.' Because of Amendment 14 Wong Kim Ark wasa citizen of the United States. Even though his parents where not U.S. Citizens.

In Perkins, Secretary of Labor, et al. v Elg. 59 S.Ct. 884 (1939) we find a different scenario. Marie Elizabeth Elg was born to parents who were naturalized citizens who later returned to their country of origin and renounced their US Citizenship. Her mother became a US Citizen due to the naturalization of her husband in accordance with the laws of the time. In this case she was declared to be a “natural born citizen”.
What has happened over the years is that often the difference between a natural born citizen, or a person who is born in the country of parents who are citizens; and a native born citizen, or a person who has 1 citizen parent or is born under the provisions of Amendment 14 has been obscured by the misuse of the terms. The Supreme Court ruling Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)11 contains a detailed discussion of Amendment 14 citizenship and the operation of the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
When one looks at the various types of citizenships that exist in the United States one finds there are three types. A person at birth can be one of two types of citizens in the United States. The third type of citizenship only applies to foreign nationals who become a citizen. The three types are

A natural born citizen is both parents are citizen of the country and the child is born in the country. In the case of the United States you have to be born in one of the 50 States. Remember, Washington, DC is part of the State of Maryland that is on loan to the general government under the provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17. The territories and possessions are not part of the United States. Only the States are actually part of the United States. Congress in 1790 extended this definition and then restored the original definition in 1795. The key is both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth of the child and the child has to be born in the country. And bases in the USA itself are still part of the State in which they are located.

A naturalized citizen is a foreign national who becomes of a citizen of the country. These are people who are covered under the basic rules established by Congress using Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4. When Hawaii became a territory of the USA under Title 8, Section 1405 the citizens of the Republic of Hawaii were declared citizens. They key is the person was never a citizen before and became a citizen. Or you were a citizen and then gave it up and then became a citizen again. I know a case where a women left the USA, became a citizen of Mexico and has been denied US citizenship and is not allowed back in except for short visits to her family. She is extremely anti-USA. I heard about the case in the 1990s.

See http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/

A native born citizen basically covers all of the other variations. These are the examples and descriptions I have read from the various cases and descriptions.

A child born out of the country of parents who are citizens of the country. This sometimes can create a dual-citizenship status depending upon the country the child is born in. This is John McCain's situation. And yes this means John McCain was not eligible to be President either.

A child born out of the country where one parent is not a citizen of the country and the other parent is. This is classic dual-citizenship status. Some people claim this is Barack Obama Jr's situation and say his mother was too young to pass on USA citizenship. I have not found anything to support this view and in fact have found law indicating she still would have given Barack Obama Jr citizenship - the age is 14 in the law. The evidence at best indicates she was visiting Kenya and had not taken up residence. Even if this is Barack Obama Jr situation he would still not be eligible to be President of the United States of America.
A child born in the country where one parent is not a citizen of the country and the other parent is a citizen. Another case of dual-citizenship. This appears to be Barack Obama Jr's situation based upon the currently publicly available information. Which means he is not eligible to be President. The definition of “natural born citizen” requires both parents be citizens of the country in question.

A child born in the country where both parents are not citizens. This is the normal situation for children born to immigrant parents. The child may have dual-citizenship. This does not apply to children born to illegal aliens or visitors. Amendment 14 has a conditional clause that excludes children born to illegal aliens and visitors. You have to be "subject to the jurisdiction" and illegal aliens and visitors are not. Think of diplomats - same rules. Some writings have indicated the 1965 immigration laws might grant citizenship to children born to illegal aliens or visitors. The specific sections of the current law have not been specified in these writings. But this would be an Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 issue and not a Amendment 14 related issue.

Natural born means that a person is a citizen from birth with no requirement of any naturalization process to be considered a citizen. The reason this requirement was added was to ensure that no foreigner tried to obtain political power in the US. For example, it would be rather embarrassing if King George III, having lost the United States in the Revolution, came over here, ran for President and won.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of confusion on this issue that's led to embarrassing problems. For example, there's no doubt that Obama's mother was an American citizen so he was an American citizen from birth even if he was born in Kenya. Ditto for Ted Cruz even though he was born in Canada.