And fleshing out David’s post a bit more, regarding Article II and the presidential eligibility clause, it’s my understanding there’s two English common-law principles at work here 1) jus soli which states that persons born within a sovereign territory are citizens from birth and 2) jus sanguinis which states that citizens may pass their citizenship on by descent at birth regardless of place.

Now it’s also my understanding there was an 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark where the court relied on jus soli to define citizenship as it relates to the 14th Amendment as well as the “natural born” requirement in Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available by only statute, not through the constitution. Despite this, most people today seem to argue that the Presidential eligibility as outlined in Article II incorporates both common-law principles. (Or it at least appears that way in my cursory overview of the matter.)

Why is that? Does the Wong Kim Ark case affect Presidential eligibility or not? Again, if their are any constitutional/legal experts that have any knowledge of how this case relates here, I would appreciate your thoughts.

UPDATE: I hadn’t visited Bench Memos in a couple of hours when I posted this — big mistake. They have an excellent discussion of this issue going on, including an excellent explication from Matthew Franck of how Wong Kim Ark has created confusion.

Also, see this post at The Volokh Conspiracy.