jill pryor Yale law review 1988
Thanks for the reference. I looked it up. Here are the first couple sentences:
Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution" has never been completely understood. It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization," do not. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent," qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved.
Sorry, rolling_stone. You lose. Ms. Pryor is actually rejecting your notion that two citizens are required for natural born status for a child born in the USA. The only controversy, according to her, is regarding children born abroad. Here's the full article:
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
“jill pryor Yale law review 1988”
How far did you get in reading that law review article?
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
Because the SECOND SENTENCE in it is:
“It is well settled that ‘native born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”
Ms. Pryor works fairly near my office. Would it affect you at all if I confirmed with her that the President does not need to have two citizen parents?