[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

If this is true, how did Bellei lose his citizenship?

He lost it because he didn't fulfill a residency requirement for someone in his category (since abolished, as I understand it). This is one of the cases around the edges I mentioned before, because I've seen cases like his called "automatic naturalization." But if he had fulfilled the residency requirement and retained his citizenship-from-birth, I don't think anyone would have challenged his eligibility for the presidency.

[DiogenesLamp]

He lost it because he didn't fulfill a residency requirement for someone in his category (since abolished, as I understand it). This is one of the cases around the edges I mentioned before, because I've seen cases like his called "automatic naturalization." But if he had fulfilled the residency requirement and retained his citizenship-from-birth, I don't think anyone would have challenged his eligibility for the presidency.

And you do not find it absurd that on the one hand he can be expelled from citizenship, but on the other he can be President of the nation? All contingent upon acts not associated with his birth?

You must believe in quanta superposition on a macroscopic scale. I think I have a cat I'd like to sell you.

[Jeff Winston]

[Bellei] lost [his US citizenship] because he didn't fulfill a residency requirement for someone in his category (since abolished, as I understand it). This is one of the cases around the edges I mentioned before, because I've seen cases like his called "automatic naturalization." But if he had fulfilled the residency requirement and retained his citizenship-from-birth, I don't think anyone would have challenged his eligibility for the presidency.

I agree.

Isn't it astonishing that there are a group of us here that keep coming to the same or at least extremely similar conclusions regarding various legal cases and situations, such as Bellei? And the 14th Amendment?

Apparently, there are some of us here who know how to read and understand court cases.