Many have argued that a would-be President in order to be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the Constitution has to be born on U.S. soil to two parents who were U.S. citizens (by birth or naturalization) at the time of his/her birth. These same individuals have argued that Obama cannot be a natural born citizen even if he was born in
"Yes. He is a natural born citizen. He was born in the
After all, the Constitution does not specifically say: "A natural born citizen must have two parents who were citizens at the time of birth,” and it does not say "no dual national persons", and it does not say "no persons with divided loyalties at the instant of birth."
In other words, the really strict constructionist justices on the Supreme Court (two of whose fathers were born in
I do not agree with the commentator for this reason. In defining what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, we are attempting to define what the standard to be President of the
Hence, the question of what is a "natural born Citizen" must be answered not only with the thought of what is "fair" and "politically correct" in our immigrant America, but also with what makes sense from a self-survival standpoint. When analyzing the national self-survival factor, we have to assume the most extreme examples, existing not only in today's world but also that of the future. When one puts these factors on the scale of justice, which way does the scale tip?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 7, 2009