Seizethecarp, there has never been a requirement that the parents of a natural born citizen be natural born. More people wonder about children born overseas to citizen parents, a mistake make by the 1st Congress in 1790 and corrected in the 3rd Congress in 1795, some, like Obama’s Con Law Professor, claim, knowing the truth, but in the interest of misdirection, that these children, born overseas, as was John McCain, are natural born citizens.
Here is the decided law, which repeats the common-law, since virtually all definitions of terms in the Constitution are from our common language and common law. But this statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite established precedent, cited at least twenty six times, but which citations were conveniently edited out of on-line supreme court decisions provided by Google partner, Justia.com in the Summer of 2008.
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.”
The statement above is postive law, stare decisis, precedence, and has never been challenged by the Supreme Court or Congress. One would need to ask the numb-skulls at the Indiana Supreme Court about their basis for a different interpretation in Ankeny, but, politics finding the Constitution's interpretations an inconvenient truth, since Democrats ran Obama, Republicans ran McCain and Green's ran Colero, none of whom are natural born citizens. Besides, the decision in Ankeny didn't depend upon the definition, if I recall correctly. Indiana, as have all courts so far, hid behind lack of standing. Since every citizen is injured, no citizen has the right to ask a court for redress, which they couldn't satisfy anyway. The law is a wonderful opportunity to deploy sophistry.
I agree and so does Corsi, who has declared Mitt to be NBC.
The only point I made (and it is only remotely probable) is that Mitt's mom MIGHT NOT have met the 14A requirement of being born “under the jurisdiction” of the US, depending on what further evidence shows. Corsi says she was “considered to be” but doesn't go into the evidence.
It is currently an open question as to whether “anchor babies” are 14A citizens. I happen to believe they are not because Wong Kim Ark was a narrow case which depended not just on his birth on US soil but on his parents domicile etc. Did Mitt's English grandfather enter the US legally and establish US domicile and was he under US jurisdiction, or did he only briefly enter the US as a UK subject and then return to the UK shortly after the birth of his daughter. Not likely, but what are the facts?
It is highly probable that Mitt's mom was NOT an “anchor baby” and was a 14A citizen as affirmed by WKA, but I haven't seen the evidence.
At a minimum it is clear that George Romney was NOT NBC and this would be a further embarrassment to the GOP elites and to Mitt to have to admit that his own father ignored the Constitution, just like Obama, to further his own ambitions.