Comment: You have to go look at contemporary sources

(See in situ)


You have to go look at contemporary sources

such as Vattel:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...
to see how the phrase was used. Vattel describes two ways of becoming a citizen, citizenship "given by nature" and citizenship by naturalization. The key point in his argument is that "children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." In other words, the presumption in the case of a newborn child is that their loyalty will follow that of the father, and the rights of the child with respect to citizenship therefore naturally follow those of the father too. (We might today include the mother in that argument.) He says that "naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights" and that a child born in a foreign country has, as a matter of natural law, the same citizenship as the father, and that this is given by nature (not naturalization), and "the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him."

With me so far?

Okay, now pretend you didn't see any of that, take just the first part of Vattel's argument out of context, stir in the assumption that a comment from the House floor that doesn't actually support the birther argument is somehow a compelling bit of proof, add an out-of-context quote from a dissenting SC opinion that doesn't define or for that matter even use the phrase "natural born citizen" and isn't trying to define citizenship much less natural born citizenship, mix with a misunderstanding of some basic points of logic such as the difference between an example (meeting a sufficient condition) and a definition (giving necessary and sufficient conditions), and you're done.

HTH