Replies

The only problem with your conclusion is that the Constitutional requirement is the the President be a natural born citizen.

Being born in the United States or being naturalized is not the same as “natural born”

If you knew the the rules of Constitutional construction you would know that the term “natural born” must mean something different than either “naturalized” or “born in the United States. You must also construe with this the portion of the Constitution that exempted those within the United States at the time the Constitution was enacted. Under the rules of Construction, it must be assumed the legislature knew exactly what it was doing at the time it was done. Congress knew that the requirement for natural born citizenship was in the constitution; and it must be assumed that Congress did not intend to change the requirement of natural born citizenship, or it would have done so in unambiguous language.

Your interpretation of the remaineder of the opinion in Patlin’s post is simply not relevant to the issue regarding Obama’s eligibility. FYI, the word “or” has a very different legal meaning than you seem to think.

If this were not the case, what purpose is served by the term “natural born”?

Maybe if one actually understood what the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction" means which is birth & naturalization according to this phrase requires single allegiance either at birth or naturalization, then maybe, just maybe, one wouldn't be so ignorant. Therefore, maybe, one would realize that the 14th does define "natural" born, but the word "natural" was not used because it would have created a redundancy.

If you knew the the rules of Constitutional construction you would know that the term “natural born” must mean something different

Here is where you fall off the track. The Constitution ONLY affords for 2 types of citizenry, born or naturalized, A1 & A2. Born a citizen means that Congress does not dictate whether you are a citizen or not. The fact one is “born” to citizen parentS is that which produces the “natural” increase of any given society. The fact that Congress decides further “increase” via naturalization which includes renouncing all former allegiances thereby leaving a single allegiance to the US produces the same result. single allegiance, either at birth or naturalization. The fact that Congress allows for ‘jus soli’ citizenship regardless of the parents allegiance is citizenship via fiat law also know as legislating from the bench (WKA), executive order or just rewriting the law and publishing it without actually voting on it.

I am very well aware of constitutional construct and the way the 14th is constructed, born & naturalized must produce the same result otherwise they would have been separated out as follows...

born ,(comma) or “naturalized & subject to the jurisdiction”

But they were not separated, they were conjoined

born or naturalized ,(comma) and “subject to the jurisdiction”

...thereby joining them together which results in a single allegiance that forms one category as a whole and that category being the increase in the citizenry, either at birth or at the time of naturalization. Single allegiance at birth produces the "natural" increase to society. Get the picture?