[DiogenesLamp]

This is all moot, though, in that the law, as previously stated, has ruled that born citizens are natural born citizens.

The law once ruled that slaves were property and still rules that unborn children are.

Let us not rely on some ruling of law or other as being the equivalent to what is the truth. Any such ruling by any legal bodies is incorrect, and we should not put much stock in it just because it comes from some legal body.

[xzins]

Since it will be ruled legal, it will be moot. If he runs, there will be no recourse in the courts, because the law is what it is, and he’ll not be obstructed. There will be a few complaints, but no legal challenge will be able to get off the ground based on what someone thinks the constitution originally meant.

[Red Steel]

You're on a roll Diogenes. You make some excellent cogent points above.

The 14th amendment does not create "natural citizens." The condition of being a "natural citizen" is not based on manmade laws, else it wouldn't be "natural." It is a condition that is inherent, much the same as a genetic child versus an adopted child.

As "natural citizens" existed prior to the 14th, what are we supposed to believe? That the 14th amendment somehow created "Extra-Natural" citizens?

The law once ruled that slaves were property and still rules that unborn children are.

:-)