Because US Constitution does NOT DEFINE what a Natural Born Citizen is. Only the SCOTUS has the final authority to interpret constitution. Anybody else’s opinion is irrelevant. If the current SCOTUS has not ruled against the current occupier of White House, then implicitly they have accepted him as NBC based on his fake Hawaii BC.
“The Constitution in fact provides that a person must be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to serve as President.”
I have found it virtually impossible to get otherwise well-informed public figures to acknowledge that “natural born” for the purpose at hand REQUIRES having had both parents being U. S. citizens at the time of birth of the candidate in question, IN ADDITION TO birth occurring on U. S. territory. For Bill O’Reilly to maintain his obtuseness on this question is one thing, but even Dinesh D’Sousa stated that birth on U. S. territory satisfies the “natural born” stipulation.
Isn't it remarkable Milton, how few appear to have actually read the Constitution? If Trump did make the statement about “native-born” his motives must be questioned. He has attorneys who should inform him, unless his real intention is to maintain the public’s state of confusion. Obama, born to and alien father and a citizen mother is presumed to be a naturalized citizen - “A native-born citizen of the US”. The term was used when the 14th Amendment turned slaves, residents but not citizens, because their allegiance was not voluntary. American Indians were also native-born, but Indians were not made citizens because their allegiance was to tribal authority, not the individual freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. It sounds like Trump is hedging his bets in case Obama is reelected. He helps Obama by contributing to the confusion around natural and naturalized citizens. To be a constitutional president one must be a natural born citizen. At least four Chief Justices, and over twenty justices have confirmed the common-law definition, a definition made precedent when it was need for the resolution of Minor v. Happersett: “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 ... natives, or natural-born citizens...”. The issue, enunciated by Roman philosophers, is that children inherit the allegiances of their parents (fathers then, since women assumed the citizenship of their husbands).
The other remarkable subterfuge is the claim that natural born citizenship is undefined since it isn't defined in the Constitution. Many are simply ignorant, and depend upon media pundits for their understanding of the Constitution. Definitions are not found in the Constitution, by design. Our founders and framers wanted the Constitution, unlike the thousands of volumes constituting English Common law found in oak paneled law libraries, it was considered essential that every literate citizen be able to understand our foundation. Like invariance principles essential to interpreting the physics of stars whose light began its journey to our telescopes ten billion years ago, our Constitution was designed with the assumption that terms be derived from the common language and common law familiar to its framers. Thus changes in the meanings of words would not affect the principles described by provisions and amendments in our Constitution. Only one word was refined in the Constitution, because its application could affect a new government - “treason.
” The definition of who were natural born citizens has never been changed, in spite of over thirty attempts to amend Article II Section 1, the last by Clare McCaskill and Barack Obama in February of 2008. Clare and Barack called it the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. Had it passed (It didn't), it needed to have been recast as an amendment to take affect. It was intended to render McCain eligible. McCaskill and Obama needed McCain's candidacy to insure that no Republican would raise the eligibility issue. Republicans didn't, and won't. Both parties had ineligible candidates, both ineligible for different reasons. No one ever questioned McCain's allegiance, inherited from his citizen parents. He was born on unincorporated territory - a State Department oversight - an unfortunate legal technicality. Obama was not born to citizen parents. His beliefs were influenced by parents, one, and perhaps both of whom hated our form of government. Our laws and our courts have never convolved naturalized with natural citizens. The 14th Amendment never mentions natural born citizenship, but its author, John Bingham, repeated the never doubted definition, expressing the the inheritance of allegiance as "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". They understood and anticipated the damage a President who didn't share our ideology could do.
It is not incorrect because precedent has been set that states there is no difference between natural and native.
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ” Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)