[SoConPubbie]

The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens.

NO, it does not!

Please provide the relevant sections of the U.S. Constitution, or it's amendments, that clearly and unambiguously define "Natural Born" as requiring two U.S. Citizens at birth.

Lacking that, Please provide the relevant sections of U.S. Federal Law that clearly and unambiguously define "Natural Born" as requiring two U.S. Citizens at birth.

Lacking that, Please provide the relevant rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court that clearly and unambiguously define "Natural Born" as requiring two U.S. Citizens at birth.

You won't because you can't because they don't exist anywhere except in your mind and in sources that are not legal or constitutional in nature.


CRUZ or LOSE!

[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.

[Obadiah]

Geez, thank you. Same stuff, different day.

Cruz or lose!

[Jack Black]

"You won't because you can't because they don't exist anywhere except in your mind and in sources that are not legal or constitutional in nature."

Citations from obscure 18th century books coming in 3,2,1..

BTW: I said the same thing, though not quite as succinctly as you over and over during the Obama birther debates.

[Godebert]

"Please provide the relevant sections of the U.S. Constitution, or it's amendments, that clearly and unambiguously define "Natural Born" as requiring two U.S. Citizens at birth. "

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution can interpret themselves, nor is the Declaration the ultimate standard for interpreting the Constitution. The laws of nature and of nature's God are the standard. The Declaration, however, clearly articulates principles of that law and the Constitution reflects the practical interweaving of those principles in it's provisions. Without the immutable laws of nature and of nature's God as an interpretive guide, however, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution lose their moral force.

[noinfringers2]

The relevancy starts with the fact, IE written, that the Constitution written and subscribed to by the Founders must have deliberately chosen different context with wording in Article I for Congress and/vs. Article II for POTUSA.