It is you who does not understand the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. It refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

Here is an example of how the phrase was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was adopted:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state." And here is how it was used in 1829:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

Neither Edwin Meese, nor Orrin Hatch, nor George Tucker, nor William Rawle is any sort of authority on the Constitution. Take the time to read the definition from the Law of Nations, which would have been used by James Madison and George Washington.

Even the words of the Constitution itself point to this definition, as it exempted those who were citizens at the time - all of whom were born here, but whose parents had no opportunity to be citizens at the time of their birth, since they were largely British subjects (ironically just as Obama's father was).

The four times the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, it has rules in favor of the Law of Nations.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided a compelling rebuttal to my post of two years ago. Do you really mean to tell me that Justice Livingston, who actually fought in the Revolutionary War, holds less credibility than Edwin Meese? Are you serious? I'd wager Livingston personally knew President Madison, during whose administration his ruling was delivered. His father served on the Constitutional Convention and was one of its signers. His ruling served to define the term so that British officers couldn't arrest US Naval officers for treason and punish them as traitors to the crown.

As stated in the Law of Nations, which would have been the definition understood by the Founders, natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Livingston, Story, Chase, and Gray, have all concurred.

Makes no difference where a man was born if his parents are not citizens. Rubio and Obama both had foreign parents and are both therefore ineligible. By the way, Juan McLame was born in Panama. Did you vote for him? By your definition, you broke the law if you did.

RWR

Neither the book The Law of Nations nor its author, Vattel, is mentioned in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. The term Natural Born appears frequently in Blackstone, which was even more of a popular book among the writers of the Constitution than Vattel.

It is a birther myth that the US Supreme Court has ever ruled that the meaning of the term Natural Born requires two citizen parents.

The US Supreme Court has, however, ruled six to two (one not voting) in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of Natural Born comes from THE COMMON LAW ( not from Vattel). And it ruled in the same case, Wong Kim Ark, that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. What is a Natural Born Citizen? A citizen who was natural born.

As for McCain, I did not vote for him, but the reason that many people consider him to have been eligible is that he fulfills the second of the two criteria for being a Natural Born Citizen in this definition:

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

Notice the OR.

Turning back to Rubio. Makes no difference whether a man (or woman's) parents were citizens so long as she or he was born in the USA.

Re: "a compelling rebuttal to my post of two years ago. Do you really mean to tell me that Justice Livingston, who actually fought in the Revolutionary War, holds less credibility than Edwin Meese?"

I take it you are referring to the Supreme Court case The Venus (12 U.S. 253 (1814)?

Well, in that ruling the words Natural Born Citizen do not appear.

(Oh, and by the way, you seem to be quoting from another birther site which stated that Livingstone delivered the opinion in The Venus. It was actually Justice Bushrod Washington, the nephew of George Washington.) (http://law.onecle.com/ussc/12/12-us-253.html)

In The Venus ruling the words Natural Born Subject do appear. BUT there is no definition of the term.

Moreover, it uses the terms native born and natural born interchangeably. For example, it says, "The Claimants are natives of that country with which we are at war, who have been naturalized in the United States."

And it also says: "The persons whose national character is now in question are natural born subjects of Great Britain, naturalized in the United States, and who afterwards returned to the country of their nativity."

It never mentions whether the claimants had British parents, only that they were native born in Great Britain. Thus The Venus does not show that the Vattel definition was used. More likely it was the common law definition. In any case, the use of Natural Born is unclear and is not a definition.

However, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the ruling is very clear, that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and that it includes all persons born in the country. Thus all native born citizens are also Natural Born Citizens.

Neither the book The Law of Nations nor its author, Vattel, is mentioned in the Federalist Papers
It is, however, mentioned in the Constitution itself (albeit in another context - see Article 1, Section 8). It is well known that the Founders both knew and used Vattel in their careers.

However, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the ruling is very clear, that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and that it includes all persons born in the country. Thus all native born citizens are also Natural Born Citizens.
The Ark case cites the Vattel definition as it appeared in Happersett. Read it.

Thus The Venus does not show that the Vattel definition was used.
Nice broken link,for starters. Try this one. You will see that this opinion was penned by Livingston in concurrence with the Chief Justice. This means that the Chief Justice issued the opinion and Livingston wrote a concurring opinion, which is also entered into the record. In case you didn't notice, Vattel is mentioned no less than six times by name. The law of nations is mentioned five times. In the opinion, Vattel's definition is quoted in Livingston's own translation:

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

The correct translation of "natives" is "naturals" and by indigenes, Vattel meant natural born citizens. British common law was mentioned in the opinion, but not in any manner that allowed it any authority.

only that they were native born in Great Britain.

No. It says that they were NATURAL born in Great Britain. So says your own quote. As for your quote from Black's Law Dictionary vis a vis McCain, it is impossible that the Founders would have considered it for their purposes. Its first edition was published well over a hundred years after the Constitution.

Whatever definition Livingston chooses to apply is what applies in any of his opinions. You have the right to disagree with him, but his quoting Vattel's definition in the document pretty much takes away your option of disagreeing with me when I say he applied it.

RWR

Re: " It is, however, mentioned in the Constitution itself (albeit in another context - see Article 1, Section 8). It is well known that the Founders both knew and used Vattel in their careers. "

NO, the BOOK The Law of Nations is not mentioned in the Constitution. The concept of international law, the law of nations, is mentioned in the section dealing with piracy. Perhaps you are confused by the capitalization of the words Law and Nations. That was not because it was a book. It was because they capitalized a lot of things in those days for emphasis. For example: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility..."

Notice the frequent use of capitals? Well, Law and Nations are just two more.

IF the book THE Law of Nations was referred to in the US Constitution, the word THE would have been capitalized (and it isn't) and the fact that a single book was referred to in the Constitution would have been explained. The writers of the US Constitution would not have inserted a single book into the US Constitution without telling us about it.

YES, the writers of the Constitution DID use Vattel frequently, mainly as an expert on INTERNATIONAL LAW. But the issue we are discussing is whether they used his definition of Natural Born and not that of the common law. To think that they would do that without telling the world about it is simply silly.

There is NO definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Minor vs Happerset case. NONE.

John Woodman put it rather well when he said:

"“There is no doubt that someone who has A PLUS B can be a member of this club.”

IS NOT a statement that

“Nobody who only has A can be a member of this club.”

Continuing:

Get it? The Minor Vs Happersett ruling was on voting rights. It was not a citizenship decision, and in passing it mentioned the fact that MINOR, the plaintiff, had been born in the USA and had US parents. And it said that because of those facts it could not ever have been doubted that she was a Natural Born US Citizen. But it did not say that she was natural born because of her parents or because of her place of birth or both.

In contrast, the Wong Kim Ark case spends a lot of time on the common law, and concludes that in England, and in the American colonies, and in the early states, AND UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION every, repeat EVERY child born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

It does not say that Wong was natural born. Why not? Because it is unnecessary. Remember syllogisms? If ALL men are mortal and George is a man, then George is mortal. Well, if every, repeat EVERY child born in the USA is natural born except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Wong was born in the USA and his parents were not foreign diplomats, then he is natural born.

The fact is that Edwin Meese is right, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law. The writers of the US Constitution were mainly lawyers. They used legal terms the way that they had been familiar with in the common law. IF they had intended to use Natural Born differently from in the common law, they would have told us.

“At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”--- Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

In The Venus ruling, the plaintiffs are described both as native born in Britain and natural born in Britain. Most likely this meant that they were both born in the country and their parents were British. BUT, the ruling is not clear about it. it certainly does not say that you have to have both been born in Britain and have British parents to be Natural Born. IF it had said that, that would be clear, but it did NOT.

The real answer here is that it doesn't matter. Barack Obama won the election fair and square, even if he was born in Kenya with both parents Kenyan citizens, which of course he wasn't. The constitution is only a guide. If it had any force of law, there would be no Senate bills; there would be no judicial activism; there would be no President Obama. Roe vs. Wade would never have happened, and neither would Kelo vs. New London. Everyone would be armed to the teeth and gun ownership and violent crime would be out of control.

What matters is that the people elected President Obama and those who were either elected or appointed by the courts (as in the Case of George W. Bush). They in turn chose judges. The people elected their representatives in both houses of Congress. Whatever the Constitution says about any of it is irrelevant. I'm sure not going to be told what to do by a bunch of old dead slave owners.

Re: "Vattel was the one the Founders followed. Regardless of what else he said, the Founders included in the Constitution that the POTUS be a natural born citizen.

There is absolutely no proof if it. And there would be, if it were true. Do you think that the writers of the Constitution would follow a Swiss philosopher instead of the common law when everyone in America was using Natural Born the way that it was in the common law without saying "we are following Vattel" or "Natural Born Citizen means two citizen parents and not the place of birth the way that it does in the common law."

The claims of "four Supreme Court" decisions are equally laughable. No one believes that. Edwin Meese, who was Ronald Reagan's Attorney general, certainly did not.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Blackstone's Commentaries were published before the US Constitution was written. "copies influenced John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln, and the Commentaries are cited in Supreme Court decisions between 10 and 12 times a year." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone)

Rawle wrote after the US Constitution, summarizing its conclusions. His views are similar to Blackstone's, Meese's and the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark--which ruled that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats--is a natural born citizen.

That is what this court ruled too:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

And this one:

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

And this one:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

And this one:

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

And this quotation from 1803 shows that in America the term Natural Born Citizen was being used the way that it was in the common law, not the way that it was in Vattel:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, that refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of the citizen. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within a state."

Ellen,

Nothing you have presented proves any better than what I have that the Founders intended for the Vattel definition to apply. Vattel's definition was UNDERSTOOD by them, with no idea that a bunch of whackjobs in the 20th Century would come around and try to redefine it so that their son of a British national could serve as POTUS. Natural born citizens, by definition, by birth, have no allegiance to or claim of citizenship from another nation, as do Mr. Obama (Kenya/UK) and Mr. Rubio (Cuba). British law even at the time of Mr. Obama's birth decrees him a British subject with NO allegiance to the US at all, regardless of his place of birth. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE TRYING TO STOP FROM HAPPENING.

I also cannot figure out why you continually throw out quotes from post-Constitutional documents (patently irrlevant) trying to explain what the Founders' reasoning would have been. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's getting to a point where I will have to ban your comments. You really need to address the issue or go away.

In other words, you have not offered any better proof against my point than I have for it. In fact, you haven't even bothered to attempt to get at the issue I have asked you and others to address - how exactly would the Founders have defined the term, which had an understood meaning at the time (much like the term "marriage" used to), and how it would be different from what I say it would be. You can't do that by quoting Edwin Meese; he's little more than a modern criminal with an opinion, and you can't do it with British Common Law, either; the Founders went out of their way to avoid it. Natural born citizens are those born within a country whose parents are both citizens.

'Nuff said.

RWR