Sorry that I can't cite the exact source, but one of our legal eagles posted data about this definition, with supporting US historical references today sometime. It was on one of the bc threads.
Yet that definition you pulled out of your sleeve is the very crux of your argument. Everything rises or falls based upon the definition of that phrase.
Regards,
Why so angry at me for making that statement, even if I may have erred in doing so, if it's just a simple matter of legal definition?
I'll admit that I didn't consult case law, or search the Constitution for the exact definition I stated. However, I feel that my statement is in accord with the original intent of the Framers, regarding the required birth conditions for qualifications of a President.
It's my hope that the high court will shed some light and clarity on the precise interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen qualification in the Constitution. It's entirely reasonable to assume that they would choose to define it as I have, if they consult the reasoning and original intent of the Framers.