I note that you use the plural when stating that previous presidents were not natural born citizens.
Was there someone else besides Chester Arthur or was he just an aberration?
I do think the “one parent not being a citizen” argument is a waste of time to the extent of trying to get him removed from office. I would raise the argument, but I wouldn’t be making it the primary focus like the people suing are doing. Everyone in Congress knew where his father had citizenship before he was nominated and the issue was brought up early. And there’s no way in hell that he’ll be impeached for it. If it was uncovered definitively that he wasn’t born in the U.S. or lost his citizenship and lied about it, he most certainly would be impeached for it. That’s why that should be the focus. Furthermore, there is no definition of the term in the constitution. Evidence as to how some early politicians used the term and its meaning is persuasive only. The Court has the ultimate authority to define the term since it’s not defined in the constitution, and it has not done so in a binding matter, and it’s free not to interpret it to require both parents being citizens if and when it ever decides to tackle the issue.
I note that you use the plural when stating that previous presidents were not natural born citizens. Was there someone else besides Chester Arthur or was he just an aberration?
Chester Aurthur claimed (or allowed the claim to be made) that hid Dad was a US citizen when Chester was born. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2144292/posts
If Chester’s dad was not a US Citizen at that time — which itself is not a absolutely known fact — then that fact wasn’t known except to few.
A successful fraud sets no precedent.