So is it your position (and that of the majority of the "legal community") that there is no differentiation to be made between the terms "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" as it relates to the question of presidential eligibility?Absolutely not. In our time there has been no question that native-born citizens are natural-born citizens, but the converse does not hold. The question has been whether *only* the native-born are natural-born. The dominant view in the legal community is that the terms are not equivalent, and that "natural-born citizen" means a citizen from the time of birth. As one eminent constitutional scholar explained it:
"The Constitution's rule that the president be 'a natural born citizen' focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date." -- Akhil Reed Amar, "The Constitution and the Candidates" http://slate.com/id/2183588/
Of course, the USSC would not take a case based on their impression of the stature of the attorneys submitting a peititon, that is patently ridiculous. I am not concerned with this matter because I agree or disagree with Apuzzo or any other member of the legal community. My only point is that there is disagreement on the matter and your reply, while appreciated, does not alter that conclusion.Disagreement about whether a native-born child of a foreigner is eligible to be president? I predicted that no one would be able to cite even one constitutional scholar who says that foreign parents are a disqualifier, and so far my prediction has born out. People cited Donofrio and Apuzzo. I mean, come on.
Does this issue require clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court? No. Want to know what "natural-born citizen" means? Just look it up in Black's Law Dictionary. The High Court regularly cites Black's, as West Publishing wants everyone to know.