Fox News reporter and host of Special Report, Bret Baier conceded on his blog today that the constitutional meaning of Natural Born Citizen has lately been a source of continuing controversy given the buzz that Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Bobby Jindal are on the short list of possible VP picks for presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. [really? I read he said they were eligible ] This is because there are growing numbers of Americans who have come to realize that the Founding Fathers were expressly concerned that our commander-in-chief have no foreign allegiances. Mr. Rubio and Mr. Jindal’s parents were foreign citizens at the time of their birth and the Constitution clearly differentiates citizenship status for both the POTUS and VPOTUS (12th Amendment).

Oddly, Mr. Baier failed to make mention on his blog, how this ongoing controversy relates to Mr. Obama’s own “Natural Born” status; especially given the fact that Obama’s parentage and birthplace have yet to be conclusively proven and verified by any independent legal authority.

[...]

As a preeminent supporter of the Constitution and a leader in the effort to ensure that citizens and elected officials clearly understand Article II and the definitive meaning intended by the Founding Fathers of “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” Mr. Baier and Fox news would be woefully remiss if they failed to reach out to Art2SuperPAC to join the debate. Our legal experts and attorneys are eager to explain the true meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.[by that I suppose he means those same attorneys who keep losing in court on the "constitutional issues".]
Read Art2SuperPAC's press release featuring Herb Titus', Esq., response to Bret Baier’s initial blog posting today, http://www.art2superpac.com/herbtitus.html

Here is Titus’ response in full -
“Bret Baier commits a common error. He assumes that "natural born citizen" means the same thing as "citizen by birth." They are not the same. A citizen by birth is one who by constitutional or statutory provision is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom they were born. Under Mr. Baier's view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law. If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baier claims they are, then by statute Congress can take away their natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship by birth. And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the constitution. Indeed, according to Mr. Baier, no one could have been eligible to be elected president UNLESS Congress passed a statute designating one's citizenship by birth, or until the 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth was ratified.”

“A natural born citizen, by contrast, is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended. A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship. The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time. By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why"natural born citizenship" is not defined in the Constitution. Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not. Such citizenship is God-given. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be "natural born" citizen of that state.”

Anyone with a computer and about an hour to kill can figure out the truth...

Bret Baier conceded on his blog today that the constitutional meaning of Natural Born Citizen has lately been a source of continuing controversy

Yeah. Its been fun over there. Debunking all that crap is pretty exhausting though.

Baier exclaims “the brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate – has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship” but it is Baier who clearly lacks a fundamental understanding of the correct definition of ‘natural born citizen’ NOT the People.

Again, Article II Super PAC more than welcomes mainstream pundits weighing in on this most elementary of citizenship definitions, but if they are going to do so, we kindly request they first get their facts straight and second, park the ridicule at the door.

The People are not ignorant and more importantly, the People demand an end to the intentional obfuscation not only of the correct definition of ‘natural born Citizen,’ but also to the political and now media establishment pretending this is a non-issue.However, it is a major national security issue and We the People demand a peaceful resolution post haste!

It's like a game of whack-a-mole.

No mater how hard you beat them over the head, they still pop up in the same old places.

A new comment has been added to the post: Natural Born Citizen 101: Who can be president?

Author: heyrob
Comment: It has been interesting following the discussion here, but I find it is taking far too much of my time to read the moronic responses of one side who don't have the intelligence or the intellectual honesty to look at the facts or learn from people who obviously have more knowledge, expertise and/or facts than themselves. Chilidog and Suranis in particular wouldn't amount to a half-wit if you could add them together; therefore I'm dropping my subscription to following the comments here. It’s just too mind numbing to listen to the endless stream of stupidity flowing here.

The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a "natural born Citizen" eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding "natural born" citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

Apparently Baier received a lot of feedback as soon as his column was published, because later the same day, he amended it:

Baier didn't mention the many conservatives who have long fought against the birthright practice, subtly helping the establishment kick them and their inconvenient assertions under the bus. Yet it was only eight years ago that Fox News noted the valid arguments in this article addressing the "presumed" (Justice Scalia's description) citizenship of Hamdi in the famous case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

Here's a partial list of prominent individuals who have argued against birthright citizenship: Judge Richard Posner, Edwin Meese, Professors Lino Graglia and Peter Schuck, Dr. Edward Erler, Dr. John Eastman, the Heritage Foundation, Representatives Ron Paul, Nathan Deal, Mark Foley, Gary Miller, and Tom Tancredo, and conservatives Ann Coulter, George Will, and Phyllis Schlafly. Rep. Lamar Smith, the current House Judiciary chairman, was a major participant in the 2005 congressional hearing on citizenship and also the signed the Center for American Unity Hamdi amicus brief in 2004 along with Tancredo. Even Harry Reid noted that more than birth in the U.S. is required for citizenship in his proposed 1993 legislation.

Ron Paul leading the list of representatives because he has so much more credibility than the rest on that list, of course ...

Herb Titus, Esq.

Van Irion, Esq.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

So "Constitutional attorney" just means "attorney who talks about the Constitution who knows the Constitution has words and stuff in it." Gotcha.