[MMaschin]

One of the prime rules of Constitutional construction, used and affirmed many times by the SCOTUS, is verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent or words should be interpreted to give them some effect.

That means that when determining what the Constitution is trying to say, you must consider every word to have a purpose. Therefore, those people that try to equate the term-of-art "natural born Citizen", to mean "Citizen at birth", are flat out wrong. Because that definition ignores the word 'natural'. If that is what the writers of the Constitution wanted, they simply would have wrote 'born Citizen' or 'Citizen at birth'.

So, what does the word natural add to phrase 'natural born Citizen'? It's actually very clear. There are two basic forms of law, positive law and natural law - here is legal defintion - http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1552 . So, what the term "natural born Citizen" means, is clear - a Citizen at birth acording to natural law.

Who is a citizen according to natural law? Simple again, anyone who would be a Citizen without any positive law. Because man can not create natural law, or a "natural born Citizen".

So, if there is a law that has been written that grants Citizenship to a person (even if from birth), and that person would not be Citizen had that law never been written, then that person is not a "natural born Citizen". I don't see what's so difficult for some people to understand.

[PA-RIVER]

You are correct.

I can see that modern progressives made mince meat of the art of the term in the public school system.

They bastardized the term for 75 years in order to explain the constitution to little children.

So here we are, with a Kenyan born Putz at the helm of USA, Driving it into the rpcks.

John Jay hit the nail on the head.