Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead and likely to remain that way, we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. (*)
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
(*)[footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throught much of the world and the Founders wished to forestall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]
Well, then, Jimmah Carter is your man, then. Fits the birther description of an NBC to a T. Who cares if he bashes on the rest of the Constitution?
Seriously, Ted Cruz has no divided loyalties. His views are much closer to those of the Founders than just about any other major elected figure. THAT is what matters, not the nitpicking.
You are correct, but I’m going to add to it, using a little different wording from a previous post of mine:
To be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, requires that
a)*both* parents be loyal to the United States, and *that* status can be: *both* demonstrated and proved, and without mystery; and
b) the child must be born on U.S. soil, and without mystery.
“Natural born” does not mean “born naturally.”
“U.S. soil” includes U.S. territories, structures of state, and vehicles of state. A “structure of state” would be a U.S. Consul or even a U.S. Mission (if the Consul or Ambassador is present). A “vehicle of state” would be *the car* or *the aircraft* of the U.S. Ambassador *with the Ambassador present.* A “vehicle of state” is also any *active* U.S. military ship on land, at sea, or in the air.
In the case of Barack H. Obama, he is not eligible, because his father had little-to-none (if any) demonstrated loyalty to the U.S.A., plus in fact, you will find that his father had *proven* loyalties elsewhere, in addition to not being a U.S. citizen.
In the case of Ted Cruz, he was not born on U.S. soil ... and I am uncertain about, at the time of his birth, what the loyalty of his father was.
The definition and examples of U.S. soil that I use, are those enumerated - strictly - for federal law enforcement and protection of individuals under our Constitution and federal statutes, when I was on duty.
Whether or not a foreign power would recognize *our* soil abroad, I sure did, as we were directed and instructed with regard to “Here is your authority; learn it; know it; be able at all times to state it” under direct orders from the President of the United States (I admit that once upon a time, somebody painfully reminded me). Federal lawyers might hem and haw because of their politics stateside, ie the State Department might go wobbly, but you would get all the protection we could provide, if you made your way to U.S. territory, as defined above.
There *has to be both* allegiance of both parents, as you say, and birth on U.S. soil, to satisfy the Constitutional distinction: a “natural born citizen,” as I have understood these matters.
That is the *strict* understanding of mine. Others promote a looser understanding that does not require “on U.S. soil,” because they are thinking of the more general “born overseas / born abroad to one U.S. parent” status that makes the child at birth, a citizen of the U.S.A., but they ignore the distinction enumerated in our Constitution.
I remain with the strict observation of “natural born citizen.” Because I was, way back when, and have remained since, loyal to the principles of original intent and enumeration of powers, that are both limitations upon government excursions into extra-Constitutional space. These restrictions and our respect for them, restrained us as federal agents. I was particularly unwilling to “make up things as we go along.” I liked very much, being so conservative and not over-stepping the boundaries.