Ignorance is OK, when kept private.
Spreading it is just wrong in so many ways.
Read your own citation:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”
Wait! Are you one of those people who think the USC doesn’t allow an income tax?
That would explain a lot.
Perhaps you should read it yourself.
Does it say..."shall be natural born citizens, nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:?
The men who wrote and established that section of the law simply would have written it in if it were within their means, wouldn't they?
Wait! Are you one of those people who think the USC doesn’t allow an income tax?
Wait! Are you one of those people who thinks that commas don't mean something?
Nah, they're just typos, right?
Excuse my ignorance — what part of that section of US code define’s “Natural-Born” citizens? I see where it speaks to citizenship. Schwarzenegger is a citizen. So what?
Obviously, there is *no* U.S. code that defines “Natural-Born” as stated in the Constitution regarding qualifications for the office of President. Vattel’s Law of Nations defined it as being born in country by two citizen parents. ie - having no birth-allegiance to any other nation-state (the reason for the term “natural-born” I would surmise). Vattel even mentioned that citizenship flows from the father.
That other presidents may or may not have had “natural-born” issues does not invalidate the US Constitution nor does it set a valid, court-defensible precedent. The current issue would need to be resolved by the SCOTUS; but that likely won’t happen before Obama’s term is up. Even so, that does not mean it shouldn’t be pursued, if only to establish a SCOTUS precedent for future presidential candidates.