[brothers4thID]

Really? What is your Constitutional argument for that? Is there a facet of accepted Constitutional reasoning that says one part of the Constitution holds more weight than another part?

Did you know that there was a historical debate 5 years ago that Jackson's Presidency might not have been legitimate? The reason being, his parents might have moved from South Carolina to the frontiers of Tennessee before his birth. Therefore he would not have been born in Tennessee. Most evidence indicates he was in fact born in SC, but it it's an interesting sidebar.

[brothers4thID]

Edit to my previous post: The debate about Jackson was that he might not have been born in the US if his parents had already moved to Tennessee which was not a state at the time.

Sorry about that. Typing too fast!

[George Smiley]

I simply applied Ockham's razor-- I didn't use any legal gymnastics.

A foreign-born Speaker would not meet one of the constitutional criteria that must be met in order for a person to serve as President. Neither would a Speaker who is less than 35 years old, or one who has not resided in the US for fourteen years- (Art. II, Section 1)

It requires that all three criteria be met.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Logically, if one of the criteria is not met, then the person is ineligible to serve as President.

One thing's absolutely certain-

It'd end up being ruled upon by the Men In Black.