Yeah, well, then there's that whole 14th Amendment thing....
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Citizens, not natural born. No anchor baby presidents.
Note that the Constitution mandates a ‘NATURAL BORN citizen’ for POTUSA. Note that the 14th Amendment addresses the ‘citizen’ only. My take is that the 14th Amendment is merely adjunct to the original Constution as that document also at places speaks only to ‘citizen’. The Founding Fathers made a ‘natural born citizen’ the bedrock for citizenship and used it only as the requirement for POTUSA. Obama is not eligible as POTUSA because the Founding Fathers were intelligent enough to understand there was a need for setting allegience at bedrock for POTUSA for the new Nation. The cases of Arthur and Obama just ‘shows to go’ that the best laid plans of man can be usurped by dishonorable persons intending to do such.
Obviously, the 14th amendment speaks to “citizenship”, but does it speak to the “Natural-born” degree of citizenship in the context of presidential qualifications? I haven’t heard/read anyone discuss that directly, and of all the SCOTUS decisions being batted around, none have (so far as I have read) discussed that “natural-born” citizenship.
That’s for simple citizenship, not for natural-born citizenship. Nice try, though.