I searched Article 2 Section 1 very carefully, word for word but I didn’t find “unless both parents were as well born in the United States.” Where exactly is that? Please enlighten me.
First; it’s both parents have to be citizens at the time of the birth. not both parents born in the US.
Second; the phrase “natural born” as used at that time was clearly understood by all to mean “ born on US soil of parents who are US citizens”.
Third; there was no ambiguity then (during the writing of the constitution) and the interjected ambiguity now is an attempt to hide treason and the fact that we have no current president.
How did Obama get around this requirement to get his passport? Was he able to get one once he was sworn in as a senator? Is there a valid United States passport in his name? What passport did he travel on when he went to Pakistan? So many questions, so many obstructions.
That being said, the current president of the United States could not in any way apply for or receive a driver's license in the state of Florida without delivering an original birth certificate..
Second; the phrase “natural born” as used at that time was clearly understood by all to mean “ born on US soil of parents who are US citizens”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Understood by whom? The only person that understood it that way was Vattel. You know that is the truth because you go on to say: “Third; there was no ambiguity then (during the writing of the constitution).”
English common law was practiced in the colonies since day one. That was the CONTEXT of the time. That is what was common to the people. Vattel was just some recent philosopher born in 1714 and totally unheard of by the common populace. The framers used him for his ideas on international trade - nothing more. If they subscribed to his views on your 2 citizen parent rule, they would have written it that way because it was precisely AGAINST what was common knowledge.