Born on US soil is all it takes, by virtue of the fact that a native born citizen with a foreign parent is currently serving as President of the United States, sworn into office by the highest court in the land.
Don't like my answer? Take it up with Chief Justice John Roberts. He seemed to have no objection towards personally administering the Oath of Office.
Imagine this:
Voters accepted Barack Obama's qualifications, as did Chief Justice Roberts, because no concrete evidence of the fraud had been presented in a manner sufficient to change their actions. Now, citizens are seeking to have the power of the court fix this mistake.
Your view of this is wrong, and you're irrelevant to the discussion here.
Born on US soil is all it takes, by virtue of the fact that a native born citizen with a foreign parent is currently serving as President of the United States, sworn into office by the highest court in the land.
Don’t like my answer? Take it up with Chief Justice John Roberts. He seemed to have no objection towards personally administering the Oath of Office.
++++++++++++++++++
The SCOTUS has not ruled definitely on the topic. They have gone right up to the edges however. I think they most certainly NEED to rule on this topic now, for the future, if not for Obama’s case that’s been pressed in our faces due to recalcitrance of our government branches and political processes - in my opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts was going with the flow of the election and wasn’t going to, on his own, overturn the election by refusing to swear Obama in. Doing so would have required a great act of courage. If the court as a whole had decided to hear some sort of case before the electoral college vote, or before the inauguration, perhaps he would have then refused to swear Obama in. But he did not going to act solo on that matter. Thus bringing up the fact that he went along with the considered wisdom (such as it was) of all the US government officials, Democrat party officials, the lower courts, undefined SCOTUS law pertinent to NBC - does not address whether NBC NEEDS to be defined further by the SCOTUS.
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” On the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations” which may have influenced the drafters of the original constitution:[19] “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”[20] The dissenters also noted that:
it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.