Thanks LJ, you kind of proved my point.
For some it’s enough that one citizen parent be an American citizen, while for others it must be both. Or that the child must be born on US soil while others are fine with two citizen parents on foreign soil. So where do we find those boundaries in what the founders wrote. The strictest interpretation is a better measure of security than the weaker position. Since our national security is paramount to ensuring the safety of our citizens and survival of our nation then the strictest interpretation should prevail in a stronger candidate with unquestionable citizenship status as it pertains to running for President.
In Obama’s situation, his weak natural citizenship qualifications were never debated and certainly there were(are) issues with his status that make him less qualified than other candidates on that requirement and he should have been passed over as a candidate. Had the founders stated only one parent should be enough to bestow that natural born citizenship status then that would have allowed that divided allegiance bastard to become president without issue. Clearly the evil that allowed that to happen anyway was not created by the founding fathers.
We certainly want the same thing, I agree with what you are saying as it relates to this constitutional requirement, and I spent many, many, many hours reading and posting in the typically 500+post deliberations on the topic here on FR over Obama and (most recently) with Ted Cruz and Kamala Harris. And, certainly I’m aware of the order of men in the era of the Constitution’s creation where primarily the father was the entity that dictated a family member’s status. On numerous levels Obama was not qualified on just this requirement alone. Perhaps one day soon his Presidency will be reversed and our nation will soon recognize the evil that allowed it to happen in the first place. That’s one of many reasons we are glued to this topic Ransomnote has worked hard to keep alive.
Minor vs Happersett
In 1875, Chief Justice Morisson Waite wrote the opinion of the court on a unanimous decision, containing the following definition:
...the court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Under the common law, according to the court, “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.
Just how does this “reversal of his (Obama’s) Presidency happen, under what law? I think you know the answer is that there is no such mechanism and it never will happen. At best his “legacy” may be besmirched, but Trump is already doing a pretty good job of dismantling it piece by piece, which is what really matters in the end.
I know that some are passionate about the NBC issue, but it seems to me that after Obama, the definition has been changed and it is not what some wish to be, and that it will be deemed non-justiciable if a challenge based on the strict interpretation is brought to the Supreme Court.