Replies

There’s no act of Congress that backs up that “interpretation”. It’s just an “interpretation” ~

The relevant act of Congress is called the Constitution, adopted in 1797. The interpretation occurred in a number of court cases:

•The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

•Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

•Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

•United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

•Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

It means exactly what John Jay said it should mean when he proposed its inclusion into the Constitution and he later sat as Chief Justice of the first Supreme Court of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama II (aka Barry Soetoro et al) is a natural born citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, regardless of where he was actually born. Having been born with allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth II, he is not eligible to serve in the Office of the President, which requires the candidate for said office never to have owed allegiance to any other sovereign bu the United States of America after the adoption of the Constitution in 1797.

You'll find that something like "establish post office and post roads" is backed up with an enormous number of laws.

The Constitution of the United States is like that. It sets up a structure for governance ~ and where folks have used it to make laws of a more detailed nature, that part has very often ended up recinded (e.g. Prohibition).

So, no, there's nothing IN the Constitution that tells us what "Natural Born" means, but we can pass a law or two that tells us what we agree for it to mean.

Congress can act now and resolve that issue.

The references from elsewhere are just interpretations.