A teeny difference in wording, but a big difference in meaning, as you can attest.

Instead, they chose native born citizen. Blackstone had said that native born subjects included everyone born in the realm, even if their parents were not subjects, and those born outside the realm to British subjects. The framers changed subject to citizen, since there was no longer any King to be subject to.

The framers also took Hamilton’s draft, and limited the Presidency to a person who would “hereafter be born a citizen of the United States” A citizen from birth, by reason of birth, and by virtue of his birth, like McCain, is a natural born citizen, born to American citizen overseas, even if he were not a “native born” citizen, born on US soil. (And McCain was born on US soil in the Canal Zone, according to Olson and Tribe).

The framers wanted to be sure that they could include children born beyond the seas to US citizen parents under the term natural born citizen. Many of the same framers, sitting in the First Congress, did just that when they passed a law treating children born beyond the seas as natural born if their parents were citizens. Washington, who also signed the Constitution, signed that law. There is federal court authority giving weight to the views of the framers in the First Congress. Also, take a look at Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech in 1860 for intent of the framers.

They wanted to be sure that the child born to the American ambassador in London was not a British subject, and did not have to be naturalized.

The only persons excluded by natural born citizen are naturalized citizens.

Vattel? Looks like his stuff about natural born had not even been translated into English yet in 1789. And he was Swiss, and talked about European Code systems of law, not the common law.

They took Hamilton’s draft, and said the Presidency could be held by any person who would “hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”

This is made clear by looking at his entire suggested draft: The full clause was: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/19/retired-major-general-joins-litigation-over-obamas-birth-status/

By Mrs. MCCASKILL:

S. 2678. A bill to clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

So it’s not an amendment that’s needed… just a “clarification?”

Uh huh….

It is clear that the Framers considered natural born to refer to a birth on U.S. soil.

“Clear” based on what? For all the hand-waving, I have yet to see anyone present a shred of evidence to back that assertion up. The original Constitution guaranteed citizenship to no one, so if “natural-born citizen” meant constitutionally guaranteed citizenship by birth, there were no “natural born” citizens at all until 1868, and every President from Tyler through Johnson was illegitimate. On the other hand, if “natural-born citizen” meant anyone who is a citizen by birth according to statute, those statutes have been in place for almost as long as we’ve had a Constitution.

Indeed, Alexander Hamilton was viewed as ineligible due to his birth in the West Indies.

“Was viewed” by whom?! Surely not by anyone who read the Constitution itself. As you noted, he was a citizen at ratification, so even if he was not considered a natural born citizen, he was clearly eligible for the Presidency, anyway.

Best out of three?

“They have played the people like a fiddle. Romney and Obama have the same 2012 playbook. Welcome to the truth.”

I’m sure it’s my own mental density, but missing your point here, Why.

QUALIFICATIONS

All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in
the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Inde

[[Page 434]]
pendence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in
this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a
child born abroad of American parents is “a natural born citizen” in
the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of
statute.\94\ Whatever the term “natural born” means, it no doubt does
not include a person who is “naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the
question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first
sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing
that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are
citizens.\95\ Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of
Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that “the
children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the
sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .”\96\
This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning
in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both
British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those
born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes
expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the
crown.\97\ There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase
includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of
their status in being born abroad of American citizens.\98\ Whether the
Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a “case or
controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated
about.

\94\8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.
\95\Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent
to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by
but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. CIR, 501
U.S. 868, 886-887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the
language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of “Heads of
Departments” in the appointments clause. See also id., 917 (Justice
Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the
language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which
persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States
would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a
child born abroad of American parents is to be considered
“naturalized” by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although
dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the
Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-
703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most
recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei,
401 U.S. 815 (1971).
\96\Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied).
See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-666 (1927); United States v.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672-675 (1898). With minor variations, this
language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act,
which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act
of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring
of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).
\97\25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, Sec. 3 (1709); 4
Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).
\98\See, e.g., Gordon,Who Can Be President of the United States:
The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968).
—————————————————————————