It is Mr. Baier who needs a U.S. Supreme Court decision to change the current status of the law, not us who know what the law is.

Fox News Is Spreading False Information on the Meaning of a “Natural Born Citizen"

      Fox News Is Spreading False Information on the Meaning of a “Natural Born
                                                     Citizen”


                                          By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                  May 1, 2012

Read this article entitled, “Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president, posted at http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/blog/2012/05/01/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president#ixzz1tdaf5KNc . The post is by a Katy Ricalde. She posts the argument of Bret Baier as to how a "natural born Citizen" is defined. Baier argues that since the Constitution does not define a "natural born Citizen," the Constitution allows Congress to do so through its naturalization statutes such as those found at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq. He concludes that any Congressional Act which makes one a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth is a "natural born Citizen," regardless of where or to whom born. He concludes:

"That is how legal experts interpret the 'natural born' requirement.. and how you get that status is actually pretty open. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue (and there are no plans that we know of that that will happen)... -- to your emails... Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President."

There are several problems with Mr. Baier's argument:

1. He fails to understand that “Citizens of the United States” and their “natural born Citizen” children already existed since after July 4, 1776 and before the Constitution was adopted in 1787. The Founding generation knew who those citizens were. That generation abandoned the English feudal and monarchial notion of subjecthood and perpetual allegiance to the King. They replaced the notion of membership in the civil society by calling their members “citizens” and “natural born Citizens” rather than “subjects” and “natural born subjects” and providing that children followed the political condition of their parents who by free will selected that condition for them until their age of majority at which time they were free to accept or change that choice, not that of some King without choice and for life. While the Constitution itself does not define a "natural born Citizen," historical evidence and case law from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts do so. That evidence shows that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to parents who at the time of their birth were both either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States." See my blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/  for a discussion of this historical evidence and case law.

READ MORE...