[John Valentine]

The Constitution specifies that the President must be a Natural Born Citizen, but does not go on to elaborate, as it does not elaborate on many other then commonly understood terms of art. There is no doubt whatsoever in my own mind precisely what the Founders meant by the term, but guess what? I’m not part of whatever deliberative process might exist now or in the future to clarify the issue.

As to your specific points: No term or provision in the Federal Code can serve to amend the Constitution or to provide binding definitions of its terms of art. If the Federal Code could be so used, the Constitution would have already been redefined virtually out of existence.

A Supreme Court decision on the matter would help, but we are not likely to see one anytime soon.

So what we are left with is the reality of a serving President who under the most generous of interpretations would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen under my log held understanding of the term, and that reality is likely to remain the precedent for generations.

The sad truth is that statute law has been so elevated as to now tower above Natural Law and any old statutory citizenship will be considered “natural born” so long as it confers the citizenship at birth, and not later, as for example, was my son’s, for the birth took place outside the United States, and hence his citizenship was conferred by force of statute. Is he eligible to serve as President?

The Department of State sure didn’t say so in the pamphlet they gave me back in 1977 explaining the terms under which his citizenship was granted. In fact they went out of their way to deny the possibility.

[SoConPubbie]

So what we are left with is the reality of a serving President who under the most generous of interpretations would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen under my log held understanding of the term, and that reality is likely to remain the precedent for generations.

No, we are left with a LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL definition that does not include requiring 2 US Citizens to be considered Natural Born.

Granted, at the time of the creation of the Constitution, it may have been the natural meaning of "Natural Born" but it was not the universal meaning, given that not all people believed it to require both parents.

That having been granted, if the desire is to make the requirement to be 2 US Citizens at birth, there are defined processes that are constitutional. There are three distinct paths:

1. Pass an Amendment to the constitution.
2. Pass a US Law, have a President sign it, and then have it survive any SCOTUS rulings.
3. Have SCOTUS rule that it requires 2 US Citizens.

Until any of those three are accomplished, Barack Obama and Ted Cruz are both eligible to be POTUS under the term "Natural Born".

Until your opinion of what is required is made constitutional, it's not constitutional.

Your opinion maybe a good opinion for obvious reasons, or it may not given the passage of time or undue limitations it puts on a citizen of the US. But as of right now, it is not either the Constitutional or Legal definition of "Natural Born".


CRUZ or LOSE!

[WildHighlander57]

John,

Re that pamphlet:

Was it something along the lines of ‘per statute XYZ your son is a citizen at birth. He is not eligible to be president’ ?

[WildHighlander57]

John,

Another question about that pamphlet:

Did it say your son was naturalized?

Did the amount of time you were away from the u.s. come into play here?