[browardchad]

This is clear and concise and not open to varied meanings dependent on perspective of the reader. Either we follow the constitution as it is written or we do not but it's not a matter of "interpretation"

Uh, no. It has never been actually defined in the context of Section 1 Article 2, so it therefore defaults to the accepted interpretation, in the year of 2010, of what a natural born citizen is: a person born in the United States, or born to one or two U.S. citizens abroad, with certain limitations prescribed by Congress.

[Durus]

Uh, no. The term “natural born” was well understood and was a legal term of the time. Stating what means in 2010 is a deliberate reinterpretation of the constitution. It's akin to saying that the right to keep and bear arms actually means the right to wear tank tops.

[Uncle Chip]

Uh, no. It has never been actually defined in the context of Section 1 Article 2,

Oh -- so then for 220 years of American electoral history, no one running for the Presidency knew what it meant???? It was just a coincidence that all of them except one met the qualifications of "natural born citizen" defined by Justice Marshall in The Venus case as early as 1824???

so it therefore defaults to the accepted interpretation, in the year of 2010, of what a natural born citizen is:

Oh --- so then we in 2010 get to change the meaning of the words of a document written 220 years ago??? Can we change the definition again in 4 years and 4 years after that???

Isn't it true that your real name is Humpty Dumpty???

[El Gato]

It has never been actually defined in the context of Section 1 Article 2, so it therefore defaults to the accepted interpretation, in the year of 2010, of what a natural born citizen is: a person born in the United States, or born to one or two U.S. citizens abroad, with certain limitations prescribed by Congress.

So you would redefine the meaning of the Constitution, not only with an amendment, without even a vote in Congress? The meaning that counts is the 1787 meaning, not what 50% + 1 can be convinced is the "today" meaning.

[noinfringers]

The Founding Fathers clearly, explicitly must have known what the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ was when they embedded Vattel’s Law of Nations into the Constitution by wording in Article I Section 8.

[noinfringers]

The Founding Fathers clearly, explicitly must have known what the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ was when they embedded Vattel’s Law of Nations into the Constitution by wording in Article I Section 8.