Natural born citizen
Natural born citizen
The only place the term “natural born citizen” appears in the U.S. Constitution is in the section listing the qualifications for president. The Founding Fathers obtained this phrase and its definition from Emmerich de Vattel's legal treatise, “The Law of Nations” (1758), which states, “natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Founders wanted to ensure the president had unquestionable loyalty to the United States. If both parents were loyal citizens at the moment of the child's birth, then it followed they would instill in their child the love and respect for our country.
John Jay — later the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court — insisted that James Madison put the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, making it a stringent presidential requirement.
At his moment of birth, Barack Obama's biological father was a British citizen, his mother a U.S. citizen. With only one citizen-parent, Obama is not a natural born citizen under Jay's interpretation of the Constitution and ineligible to be president.
Obama's lack of natural born citizenship was totally ignored during the presidential campaign, except by those who cling to the Constitution as the law of the land. It is painfully obvious to those few loyal Americans that the Constitution is totally irrelevant and our republic is gone forever.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Good riddance
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Idea for casino
- Punishment pushback I
- Framers’ understanding
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Punishment pushback II
- Don’t blame bus drivers I
- Don’t blame bus drivers II