Yes, that is so. Rules are rules. The Constitution doesn’t say if you are a Natural Born Citizen except for this, this, or this reason, then you can be POTUS. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is. As far as being raised abroad as an enemy combatant, it would be up to the voters to decide if that person should be president. We have enough conservative media today that can bring this to light to the voters. I would hope that this never happens, but there is nothing in the Constitution that stops this. This scenario that you mention could happen no matter what citizenship status that the parents have. Parents born in the U.S. could be anarchists and raise an anarchist child overseas as well as a non-U.S. set of parents.
We have enough Communists masquerading as Democrats today in this country that are NBCs that could be president at any time.
We are so close to agreement, my dear proud mother of a Marine Vet. And thank you for your families' service to our country.
Please note this excerpt from the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 ...
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;As you can see, the Constitution actually DOES provide for an exception to the NBC requirement. The "grandfather" clause exempts mere citizens who were alive at the time of Ratification because there were no NBC's yet; the country had only just been established. Most were born in a British Colony in the New World. They and their parents were bornBritish subjects and remained so until after The War of Independence.
Our primary point of disagreement is about whether any citizen is also a "natural born Citizen." This crucial national security provision of the Constitution recognizes "Persons," "Citizens," and "natural born Citizens."
Please help me understand?:
Why did the Framers make a distinction between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" if there is no such difference?