It has always been said by men intent on deception and deceit, that the Constitution does not define the term "natural born citizen" and it is necessary to look to English law for a definition of that term. What they want you to forget about is that no words are defined by the Constitution. It is necessary to define all the words by the method frequently observed by investigators and lawyers seeking facts and truth. Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains must be the truth.
Look at the Constitution. Look at the notes of James Madison. In addition, look to the actions of the first Congress to understand the intent of the words used in the Constitution. The Supreme Court had looked at Constitutional issues this way. When the Court accepted a case with Constitutional concerns, the Court has historically and lawfully, looked at these three sources to decide what was the intent of the words of the Constitution and what the words then mean.
So why is the issue of "Race" even being brought up? The first Congress brought up race fulfilling the requirement that Congress "establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" by Section 8, Article I of our Constitution. When Congress enacted the first federal naturalization law in 1790, the Act included the requirement that the person to be naturalized be a "free white person." Therefore, it is astonishing to me that any historian or lawyer that knows this cannot seem to connect the dots and realize that the Constitution does contain issues of Race.
What is "Race" and how are races distinguished? The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences says this about Race; "The term race is often used loosely to indicate groups of men differing in appearance, language or culture. As here understood it applies solely to the biological groupings of human types. Early attempts at a systematic arrangement of human races were made in the eighteenth century."
Carolus Linnaeus, (1707-1778), a Swedish naturalist, arranged the genus homo sapiens into six groups. One is excluded due to non-existence and another as pathological. The four remaining are americanus, europaeus, afer, and asiaticus. These classifications are based on the limited knowledge he had of distribution of human types.
In Roman times, Titus Lucretius Carus, (94? - 55? BC), on a purely deductive basis, divided people on cultural conditions, and came up with four groupings; day, night, eastern dawn and western dawn.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, (1752-1840) described five divisions or races; Caucasians, Mongolians, Malayans, Americans, and Ethiopians.
Comte de Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc, (1707-1788) considered the human races as varieties derived from an original white form and developed under the influences of climate.
Gustav Friedrich Klemm, (1802-1867) divided mankind into an active (male) and a passive (female) group.
When the Constitution is read it is obvious that American Indians, the real first Native Americans, (or "Natives" as Indians were referred to), were not to be counted in any "Enumeration" for representation in the new Congress. It is only right that non-citizens be excluded from any Enumeration or "census of citizens" and exclude from that count. That Congress does not adhere to that Constitutional requirement is a cause for the current under representation of the citizens of our country.
Cushman K. Davis in his "A Treatise on International Law," gives the status of the American Indian race as conclusive based on the decision of four Supreme Court cases. Those cases are; Elk v. Wilkens, 12 U. S. 94; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515; and Crow Dog's Case, 109 U. S. 556. These cases firmly establish that the American Indian race were excluded from citizenship at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and continued on in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2, excluding Indians from citizenship and as non citizens, excluded from any enumeration or census for representation in Congress. Only a Constitutional Amendment will change the American Indian status from ineligible to eligible for citizenship. Acts of Congress do not change the Constitution.
Further reading the Constitution, we find the phrase "three fifths of all other Persons." It is well known, that group of "Persons" refers to the slaves of the Ethiopian or African race to be counted in the enumeration.
The decision in the Dred Scott case, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was that persons of the African race were not citizens and could not bring a case to the Court. There were members of the African race who had been awarded citizenship in the United States during the Revolutionary War but that citizenship did not descend to their offspring because they were not of the right "blood."
The Constitution does not directly say that only a person of the Caucasian or "White" race fulfils part of the requirement toward uncovering the definition of "natural born citizen." The 55 men that wrote the Constitution were entirely of the Caucasian race. The other two races in the United States, the American Indian Race and the slaves of the Ethiopian or African Race, were both denied citizenship and lawfully and logically would not be included in the Constitutional definition of "natural born citizen." How could anyone be considered a "natural born citizen" if they were denied basic citizenship? It is illogical and inconsistent with law to make that incorrect assumption.
Therefore, when the factor "Race" is applied to the question of who is a "natural born citizen," the "Races" other than Caucasian or White, due to being denied basic citizenship by the Constitution, only by a Constitutional Amendment will other "Races" become lawfully eligible for the Office of President.
It also makes plain the truth that as a Constitutional Law expert and instructor, Barack Obama knew he was ineligible to the Office of President. He brought up "Race" as being divisive when the truth is, race would uncover his ineligibility. Being a person of the African Race, he was not empowered by law with eligibility and depended solely on Congress to Act by Political Correctness, (as Congress has done in the past), for him to gain the position for which he is Constitutional ineligible. As any con man defrauding the public, he should face trial for his criminal act and accept his punishment as Mr. Bernard Madoff has accepted his. It is the justice of law the American people demand.