[rxsid]

Most things in the Constitution are not defined.

Why would you disregard what many SCOTUS justices have already stated, and what the House of Reps defined back in the 1860's?

Did they have no clue as to what the founders and framers meant?

The only thing that hasn't happened, specifically, is deciding if someone born with foreign allegiance owed can be President...because no such case has been heard and decided by SCOTUS.
The definition, however, is found in numerous other SCOTUS cases concerning citizenship.

If simply being born in the country were enough to be a natural born citizen, you must then admit and agree that 1) anchor baby's are POTUS eligible as is the current Dauphine of France.

Both notions would have been offensive to the framers and those that ratified the Constitution. It should also be offensive to sensible people of today.

FWIW, my oldest son is a naturalized Citizen, my middle son is a natural born Citizen and a younger daughter who is a Citizen by statue/14th Amendment.

[New Jersey Realist]

Thanks for the reply. I feel your pain. It is very confusing. It seems for the time being anyway that “soil” is the defining factor regarding Obummer and that means illegals can come here, drop a baby and they would also be eligible. I don’t like that for a minute. I was born here and my parents were born here so I have an “inherited” sense of entitlement. My feelings are: if I am eligible to run for President, my children should be as well; if they are, even though their mother was English at the time, then so are anchor babies. What a freekin development this is!