So what would you have him do? He’s claimed pretty clearly, as far as I can see, that ‘natural born citizen’ does not and never did require two citizen parents. (Do you agree that that’s his point?) In support of that fairly focused point, he’s provided cites from historical sources. (It may look like a bludgeoning wall of text to you, but that’s not his problem.) That all looks like ‘arguing’ to me.
Answer the question in his own words, like we've been asking him to.
He’s claimed pretty clearly, as far as I can see, that ‘natural born citizen’ does not and never did require two citizen parents.
Well, sure he's made that claim. What he hasn't done (as others in this debate have) is to make a convincing argument for why the Framers would have considered that to be a sufficient citizenship pedigree for the office of President.
If all he's going to do is post cut and pastes of historical citations, then he's not really involved in the conversation. Any of us can look up citations on Google if we want.
Natural born is a concept of Natural Law, so how many natural parents does it take to make a child?
-----
Also, acting as if the federal government has the ability to consider ONLY the only citizenship of the American parent raises the question:
By what authority does the federal government deny the very existence of any human being?