This page excerpts all U.S. Supreme Court opinions that use the term “natural born citizen”, based on a search conducted in Justia’s Supreme Court Cases for that quoted phrase. The purpose of this compendium is to provide a a general understanding of how – and in what context – the US Supreme Court has used the term “natural born citizen.”
Some of these opinions merely use the phrase in reciting the facts of the case, without discussion as to its meaning. We’ve included those cases in order to provide a comprehensive compendium of the Court’s use of the phrase. Other opinions use the phrase in the context of addressing issues having nothing to do with citizenship. Again, we’ve still included those cases for purposes of completeness. Still other opinions using the phrase have been since overruled or abrogated by Constitutional Amendment or federal statute (e.g., Dred Scott). Again, we still include excerpts from those opinions for completeness purposes. And, of course, several opinions do use the phrase in the context of a discussion of what citizenship means.
Continues .. at What’s Your Evidence?
Does the term “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution require both parents to be citizens of the United States at the time of birth?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Appellants and their counsel appear to be card-carrying members of the so-called birther movement that seek to prove the President is not a “natural born citizen” and hence ineligible to be President. Apparently unable to prove their preposterous theory that the President was born in Kenya, the movement has spawned a number of equally bizarre alternative theories of ineligibility, including the one now before this court. Here, the Appellants are asking nothing less than for this court to overturn a presidential election on a novel definition of “natural born citizen” that requires one’s parents to be citizens of the United States at the time of birth. Such a definition, of course, has no support from our courts or our history.
Continues .. at Natural Born Citizenship Research
There seems to be strong historical evidence that the founders of the country considered native born citizen and natural born citizen the same thing. Consider the following from commenter Ballantine and see of you don’t agree:
No court has ruled on NBC. The court has not defined many terms, but that does not mean a definition is in doubt. Even if it was in doubt, the court will look to all early legal authorities to define such term…
With respect to native birth, Wong stated that since the common law was adopted, all children born in the US are generally native born citizens. You are simply trying to read an implication into a choice of terminology. The court made clear the English common law rules controlled and under the common law all the native born (subject to common law exceptions) were by definition “natural born.” I think you need to refresh your Blackstone as you would see there are only 2 classes of people at birth under the common law, the natural born and the alien born. The natural born were also referred to as natives. There is no authority anywhere that says there is a difference between native and natural born under the common law.
Finally, here is a list of early authorities saying that the president needs to be native born citizen or a native. Take notice it includes the most influential scholars of the early republic that court consistently relies upon. If you or Leo [Donofrio] disagree with this multitude you need to find authority to the contrary. Clearly, there you have no such authority.
Continues … at Obama Conspiracy Theories