That argument, made by many FReepers as well, fails because it would allow US-born anchor babies whose parents were illegal aliens eligible to be president. I doubt this is what the founders intended at all. There was a very specific reason for the "natural born" language in the supreme law of the land.
I routinely cite the case of Rogers v Bellei to disprove the "born" argument. Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian Father and an American Mother. He was an American citizen at birth because congress passed a law declaring the offspring of a single American parent to be a "citizen." Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to meet residency requirements.
My point in bringing this up, is that a citizen born to a single American citizen (such as Bellei) is not a "natural born citizen" (in the meaning of article II) because a natural born citizen would not lose his citizenship for failure to meet a residency requirement. The only difference between Bellei and Obama is that Obama can claim 14th amendment citizenship *IF* he really was born in this country. Still not "natural born citizenship" but it is better than what Bellei had.
Anyway, the current title of this thread is not what I wrote when I created it. It has been changed somehow. I had no intention of getting involved in the Rubio discussion, I only meant to point out that Lawrence Solum did not believe the two citizen parents argument was crazy.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “I routinely cite the case of Rogers v Bellei to disprove the ‘born’ argument. Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian Father and an American Mother. He was an American citizen at birth because congress passed a law declaring the offspring of a single American parent to be a ‘citizen.’”
In one of the very few cases where a real court has spoken to Article II eligibility, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California cited that very case, Rogers v Bellei. Markham Robinson petitioned for a preliminary injunction to remove Panamanian-born John S. McCain III from the ballot. In order to rule, the Court assessed the likelihood Robinson winning on the merits, and cited Rogers v Bellei in the context:
“Article II states that ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.’ Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970).” [Robinson v. Bowen]
The Court doesn’t seem to agree with DiogenesLamp’s interpretation of Rogers v. Bellei. Furthermore, of McCain’s status the Court wrote, in part:
“Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.”
That is not some anti-birther. That’s how the law and the precedents played in a real court, before a real judge. Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?