I think you are unnecessarily rough on Ann. Show me the clause in the Constitution that states that "A Natural Born citizen MUST have TWO citizen parents!."
No. Really. Show me (and I'm not even from Missouri.)
As I explained, quoting Chief Justice Morrison Waite, the Constitution has no definitions. The terms used in the Constitution come from our “common-law” and language familiar to our framers. Here is framer, founder, and Chief Justice John Marshall, explaining the common-law and citing his source in The Venus, 12 US 253:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The Obots will argue over “indigense, a term from the orginal French edition of Vattel, but Waite removed any doubt when he affirmed the definition of “native” in his Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1894) decision:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Whether or not you are an Obot, you are using their sophistry to perpetrate confusion. I could provide thirty other citations, including the direct repetition of the Waite definition above as Justice Gray clarified who were natural born citizen in Wong Kim Ark. Hint; Wong Kim was born on our soil, and made a naturalized citizen.
NO! I want you to show me the clause that says they must be LIVING.
What's that you say? It's not in there? Why isn't it written in the Constitution that they must be ALIVE? Could it be that the requirement was so bloody obvious that no one felt that it needed to be specified?
In 1787, only the FATHER determined nationality. The mother was AUTOMATICALLY the same citizenship as the Father. Marriage Automatically naturalized the Women, so there was no real need to concern ourselves with the Woman's citizenship. It is ONLY the citizenship of the Father which mattered. This was a legal principle known as "Partus Sequitur Patrem" (Which is my tagline, by the way)
You may not understand this, but the Word "Patria" means "Country" in Latin. The word "Patriot" is a derivative of it. In fact, the word "Patria" is derived from "Pater", which of course means "Father". To be quite Honest, "Patria" means "land of my Father."
The "Two citizen parent" was automatic if the Father was a Citizen. (Prior to 1922, anyway) It does not need to be specified that both need to be citizens, because the one was automatically a citizen if the other was a citizen. Nobody in 1787 ever thought that future generations would be so ignorant and stupid as to need this spelled out to them.
They really underestimated how Ignorant and stupid modern Americans could become.