[Spaulding]

I don't know where you got that idea. Read Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the constitution. Then, since the predictable response will be that the Naturalization Act of 1790 made someone one of whose parents was a citizen natural born, read the 1795 act which repeals the 1790 act. Then, if you search every piece of legislation in effect, you will find no reference to natural born citizen. Then, you may say natural born citizen is not defined in the constitution, as Patrick Leahy, Hillary, McGaskill, Obama and Chertoff (as an invited comment) did, while using the very Vattel definition to make McCain an honorary natural born citizen, and quiet the Republicans, who all knew, because he told them, the Obama’s father was a British citizen. Finally, you can read John Marshall, or John Jay, or Benjamin Franklin, or John Bingham telling us the definition, and with several of them, I'll note Marshall in the prevailing decision in The Venus, 1814, that the most concise formulation, the one used by the USSC, is Vattel’s and he quotes it. It was the common law in effect at the time the constitution was written, and for ever after - never amended. The mother, even if she were 35, couldn't confer natural born citizenship without the father too being a citizen. You are either confused, or attempting to confuse.

[RegulatorCountry]

Nice synopsis. I've made very similar comments myself.

I jumped into this collossal thread after seeing something potentially amusing on the Comments tab.

So, I don't really know what else FreeAlaska32 may have claimed or the correctness of it.

But, I do agree with her(?) that this BC, as well as the purported Hawaiian BC, is a distraction, since he's already clearly ineligible, by his own admission.