Replies

The Founding Fathers established a process to amend and change their thinking in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment altered their thinking on citizenship by establishing only two categories of American citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, born citizens can be president and naturalized citizens cannot be president.

Sorry, but the language of the 14th Amendment doesn't nullify the language of the requirements for president. Both are still definitive law but the language of the 14th Amendment is subject to and defined in the context of Article II, Section 1. Chester A. Arthur was still very much concerned about the language of Article II, Section 1 in spite of the 14th Amendment passed about 12 years before he ran for vice president and went to great lengths to conceal his dual citizenship conferred on him at birth by his father's British citizenship.

You are of the leftist persuasion in your application of principles, that is all is relative, Rules for thee but not for me. By saying that conservatives get these benefits you are implying that Obama is legitimate and whoever else they want to throw up because, ultimately, you cannot have rules that are only good for the opposition. The opposition is much better at this sort of game than any conservatives are, even you.

Sorry, but the language of the 14th Amendment doesn’t nullify the language of the requirements for president. Both are still definitive law but the language of the 14th Amendment is subject to and defined in the context of Article II, Section 1. Chester A. Arthur was still very much concerned about the language of Article II, Section 1 in spite of the 14th Amendment passed about 12 years before he ran for vice president and went to great lengths to conceal his dual citizenship conferred on him at birth by his father’s British citizenship.

Has the Supreme Court of the United States, has the US Congress, has the Republican Party, has John McCain, has Sarah Palin, has any state government (the people and entities who COULD challenge Barack Hussein Obama as ineligible) shown ANY inclination to make such a challenge?
There is NO difference between a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” as defined by the US Code and a “natural born citizen” as designated in Article II, Section I of the Constitution.

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance providing by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominion [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framinig of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals. Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009

“Sorry, but the language of the 14th Amendment doesn’t nullify the language of the requirements for president.”

No one’s saying it does. Or, rather, no one who knows what they’re talking about. People apparently cannot get their heads around the notion that a clause’s application can be determined by a future clause without it’s meaning or language changing a jot. The 14th amendment set who gets to be a citizen at birth, and therefore automatically set who fulfills the NBC requirement in Article 2. Simple as that.