[Save-the-Union]

To me, this entire argument hinges on the original intent of the framers when they authored article 2. There are some that would argue that that the matter is settled. They would have us worship at the alter of precedent either judicial or historical. Those that argue this, use defective logic. Think about it..... If someone publicly breaks a law and the violation is intentionally ignored or distorted by those whose duty it is to define or enforce it, does that make the law less valid? No it does not.... So better our discussion should focus on what the framers actually meant in article 2. Obama might get a pass simply because the matter is not settled. So far, most courts including U.S Supreme Court have not had the courage to take on this matter. We need to clearly define what is meant by the Natural Born Citizen requirement to hold the office of president of the United States. It is as simple as that.

[DiogenesLamp]

To me, this entire argument hinges on the original intent of the framers when they authored article 2. There are some that would argue that that the matter is settled. They would have us worship at the alter of precedent either judicial or historical. Those that argue this, use defective logic. Think about it..... If someone publicly breaks a law and the violation is intentionally ignored or distorted by those whose duty it is to define or enforce it, does that make the law less valid? No it does not.... So better our discussion should focus on what the framers actually meant in article 2. Obama might get a pass simply because the matter is not settled. So far, most courts including U.S Supreme Court have not had the courage to take on this matter. We need to clearly define what is meant by the Natural Born Citizen requirement to hold the office of president of the United States. It is as simple as that.

I would suggest that the definition is in fact clear, rather we need to make people understand that the definition is clear, and likewise WHY it is clear.

The concept of being a "natural" citizen is relatively simple. It is a case in which citizenship is inherent in ones nature and requiring no act of law.

Without the 14th amendment *AND* the Cable act, Obama would not even be a citizen, and that is only *IF* he was actually born in this country. ( A circumstance yet to be demonstrated beyond doubt.)

[4Zoltan]

“To me, this entire argument hinges on the original intent of the framers when they authored article 2.”

But that is not how some members of the Supreme Court view it.

Justice Scalia has written that in interpeting the Constitution, he does not look at the intent of the Framers, only what the words meant in 1787.