The Original Intent the Natural Born Citizen

A MAJOR MUST READ!  Here is a sample from Give Us Liberty


The American Thinker is falling into a partisan stupor, in their article “Cruz, Haley, Jindal, Rubio: Flight 2016 Cleared for Takeoff” by Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison they prove they have no idea of what they are talking about. In this article they cynically ask the question.
Consider this historical question: Could it have been the original intent of the Founders to disqualify themselves from serving as president?
Perhaps they failed to read Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 or perhaps they are so desperate to increase the GOP ranks of charismatic presidential candidates they ceased to be objective.
Regardless, the Constitution clearly solves this “dilemma” these authors create with the Grandfather clause included in the presidential eligibility criteria of Article II.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
Notice the phrase “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Clearly they (the Founding Fathers) thought this problem through.
In fact Chief Justice Waite in his Minor v. Happersett decision speaks of who were the original citizens.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens.
So both Blackwell and Morrison have shown to us just how ignorant they are to ask a question in hopes of supporting their title statement.
They frame their question in such a way so that we should only look at the original intent through the filter they want us to. But what was the original intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause.
So I ask them to consider what was the original intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause. We are blessed with having the framers thoughts recorded for posterity. And we are doubly blessed that these records are few but in concert as to their intent.
John Jay wrote George Washington saying, “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
Alexander Hamilton raises a very profound question as to influence of foreigners in our Presidency. “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
Clearly the NBC clause was established to prevent foreigners and foreign influence from taking command of America’s armed forces!
So the question is who is a foreigner? The three most popular dictionaries define a foreigner as one whose allegiance is owed to a foreign country.
MerriamWebster Dictionary – “a person belonging to or owing allegiance to a foreign country.”
Oxford English Dictionary – “One who is a subject of another country than that in which he resides. A resident foreign in origin and not naturalized, whose allegiance is thus due to a foreign state.”
Blacks Law Dictionary – “A person who is not a citizen or subject of the state or country in which mention is made, or any one owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign”
So the Framers only wanted a person to be President if they had no foreign allegiances.  This seems to be the same sentiment about 80 years later when Congress was adopting the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment.
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866
What is so hard to understand, a natural born citizen is one who is born not owing allegiance to any country but the United States of America?
Does this mean the Vattel 212 formula is the only formula for defining a natural born citizen? No, although the formula Vattel proscribed in his seminal work the Law of Nations does in fact guarantee that those born in the United States to citizen parents are natural born citizens, there are mitigating factors that still uphold the framers intent of having allegiance only to the United States. One example would be the child found abandoned on the street at six months of age, we agree if no one claims him or her before the age of 21 that child is considered a natural born citizen.
Now for those who like and have mad props for Ted Cruz, like this author…time for a reality check.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father.  Cruz is a great man, a true conservative but he is ineligible to be President, because the law of Canada made him a citizen of Canada by BIRTH. His citizenship comes from Title 8 of the United States Code.
A true conservative indeed, but sorry Cruz missile, you are off course if you want to run for President.  Anyone catch this bunch of fireworks between he and leftist gun grabbing CA Senator Dianne Feinstein?