[sten]

and if you missed it, the common language was already addressed:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their “

—
U.S. Supreme Court
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html

[kabar]

Again, you can argue the legalities citing various cases to support your position. Tribe and Olson have their own views and cite different cases. I provided you with their evaluation and written opinion. They disagree with your position.

Tribe/Olson Natural Born Citizen Memo

The bottom line is that we do not have a SCOTUS case that defines natural born citizen as it applies to being eligible to be President of the United States. It matters little what I think or you think for that matter. What counts is what the courts think.

We now have the precedent of someone occupying the WH born of one parent who was not a US citizen. There is some question as to whether Obama's parents were married even though they got a divorce. Somehow, we need to get the issue before the courts either with Obama or someone else who has standing.

This is not settled law.