Here is what Tribe and Olson said. I know you think that they are tools of Soros, but they are considered Constitutional scholars. You can't easily discount their views, because they influenced the vote on Senate Resolution 511.
The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
I have read the opinions of other constitutional scholars who disagree with Tribe and Olson. But that doesn't resolve the issue one way or the other. We can't resolve it on this thread or in public discussions. It must go to SCOTUS. Everything else is speculation. It is not settled law.
Re citizenship: There are only two ways to acquire automatic citizenship--jus sanguinis or jus solis. Naturalization is the third way. The question is whether SCOTUS would consider the automatic ways of citizenship to equate to "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution or that there would be another class of citizenship beyond the other two. This would not affect residency or age requirements, which are a separate issue.
Natural Born Citizen Crisis - Presidential Usurpation
http://vimeo.com/pixelpatriot/naturalborncitizen-constitutionalcrisis
Wow! The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on it because it isn’t their Constitutional role to do so.
One - the Supreme Court has no say in any of this. All cases, such as Strunks, will go nowhere.
Only Congress can address the issue concerning the definition of ‘natural born Citizen’. Only Congress can remove a President, and not the Supreme Court.
Hell! Congress can’t even pass a budget to run the nation, much less come up with a definition concerning one of the eligibility requirements for President.
By the way, that statute you quote, “Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.”
That statute above was rescinded in 1797. It was at odds with the Constitution.
The Founders knew what natural born Citizen meant. I’m quite certain they never intended the spawn of illegal aliens to end up as President of the United State, which is what you’re advocating.
passing a constitutional amendment does not require SCOTUS input.
\
As for born overseas to two USC parents being natural born it appears you are wrong. in 1790 congrees passed a law stating such then revoked it as it was not an amendment. That gives more ammunition to the fact that born overseas to two usc parents is not natural born. if so why pass a law? Kinda like the resolution.