Scientist:
MichaelN, you have a sacred obligation not to duck these questions, but give them some serious thought. We know that the meaning of natural born citizen is the most important question in the history of the Universe and only you know the answer, so don’t shirk your duty.

Yikes! You owe me a new sarcasm meter! Mine just melted! Well done!

Greg: I think we should also consider space. Is a child born or cloned in space natural born? What about if they are above the US?

My impression is that the child would be considered born in whatever country they landed in. I think that’s how it works for airplanes today. But this whole born in space thing makes jus soli sort of strange. Maybe future humans will be like the vampires of legend, taking some of their native soil with them as they travel.

Scientist: There is also cloning. I would like to hear MichaelN’s thoughts on the eligibility of a cloned human under the following circumstances

Are we talking about cloning as it exists now, where the clone is born and grows up, or the cloning vat variety, where we throw a few cells in and out pops a fully formed 35-year old?

Would the outcome be different if the artificial “egg” weren’t implanted into a woman, but grown in an artificial womb and is “born” entirely outside the natural process? So, we’ve got an infant, but one who was never really “born.”

I think we should also consider space. Is a child born or cloned in space natural born? What about if they are above the US?

Dr. Conspiracy: Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.

No longer true. There is also cloning. I would like to hear MichaelN’s thoughts on the eligibility of a cloned human under the following circumstances:
1. Would they be eligible at birth, assuming the cell donor was at least 35?
2. Suppose the cell donor was a US citizen, but the cloning occurred overseas?
3. What if the cell donor were a foreigner but the cloning occurred in the US?

MichaelN, you have a sacred obligation not to duck these questions, but give them some serious thought. We know that the meaning of natural born citizen is the most important question in the history of the Universe and only you know the answer, so don’t shirk your duty.

MichaelN: There was no method for ‘naturalization’ at the time

Do you want to, maybe, read the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States

Under the articles of Confederation, each state had a naturalization processs. It is simply not true that there was no method for naturalization.

War of Independence, commencing in 1775, up to the the completion of the USC, when it was made ready for adoption in 1787

Are you from the United States?

July 4, 1776 – Declaration of Independence.

That is the beginning of the Revolution.

the USC was not ‘written in 1787′

It was written at the Constitutional Convention which met in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787. May 1787 is in 1787. September 1787 is in 1787. Therefore, the Constitution was written in 1787.

Honestly, your arguments more closely resemble word soup than anything making a coherent point. You clearly haven’t thought through any of what you’re saying.

You think Prince William is not a natural born subject of England?

Since only subjects can inherit, what does that mean for William?

in the context of eligibility for a president of a republic for which NO PRECEDENT existed in English Common Law.

And yet, they chose a phrase, natural born which had a specific meaning, which HAD A PRECEDENT that was known to the founders, who had all read all of Calvin’s Case (unlike you who’ve read 3 paragraphs). They had read Blackstone who explained that the children of aliens were natural born subjects.

How incompetent were the Founders to have chosen a phrase with a meaning established by hundreds of years of precedent?

Consider: Pierre comes to Virginia in 1774 and never naturalizes. He has a child in 1774. That child is a natural born subject. Virginia law makes him a natural born subject. English law makes him a natural born subject. That’s a condition of value, since his child can buy real estate, he can write a will. Because he’s a natural born subject, he can serve in government positions his father wouldn’t be eligible for even if he naturalized.

And the Founders, in their infinite wisdom, tell Pierre that his child is a natural born subject, but NOT a natural born citizen. Except, wait, they FORGET TO ACTUALLY TELL HIM! No founder thinks to write down, ANYWHERE that natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents. Pierre’s child has to wait until he runs for the Presidency, in 2008, to find out that he’s not eligible for the Presidency!

If the Founders’ intention really was to make sure that only the children of citizens were eligible for the Presidency, they failed UTTERLY! By 1803, Tucker (who knew the Founders) was saying that natural born hadn’t changed meaning. By 1829, Rawle (who got his first government job from George Washington) was saying that those born to aliens were natural born citizens and by 1844, Judge Sandford said it was universally accepted that the child of aliens would be eligible for the Presidency.

And the Founders never objected to a single one of these interpretations, which you say are clearly erroneous. James Madison died in 1836. He never thought to correct Tucker or Rawle?

And in 200+ years, no one ever seriously proposed a citizen who could get his citizenship because of his birth here but was not eligible for the Presidency! For example, everyone in Wong Kim Ark knew that Wong was either an alien or he was eligible for the Presidency – no one thought he could become some ineligible citizen by birth!

And when Senators argued that they couldn’t vote for the 14th Amendment was that it would make the children of aliens eligible for the Presidency, no one corrected them!

Your argument suffers from the “argument from personal conviction” fallacy – you think it must be true because you really believe it, all evidence to the contrary be darned!.