Report Abuse

You have chosen to report the following comment as abusive, offensive, or inappropriate.

Dave O. brings up a valid point.<br> <br> By it's very use in the Constitution of the Untied States, the definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen" became set in stone when the Constitution was ratified. Until the Constitution is amended to say otherwise, the term "Natural Born Citizen" used in it's Constitutional sense, must mean EXACTLY what it meant when the Constitution was initially ratified.<br> <br> To allow Congress, through the passage of law, to change the meaning or qualifications of being a "Natural Born Citizen" under the Constitution is to give Congress and the President the ability to amend the Constitution without going through the required amendment procedures. They can change the definition as it applies to Federal Law, but not as it applies to the Constitution.<br> <br> The Supreme Court has stated as much in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920). Though the court was referring to the term "Income" as used in the 16th Amendment, the principle they stated remains.<br> <br> "Congress by any definition it may adopt cannot conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."<br> <br> So, what did the term "Natural Born Citizen" mean in 1789 to those who drafted the Constitution? Dave O. may well have the answer.
By Steve

Your name
Explanation
Security Code	* Please enter the code shown above