The pluralization of "parent" indicates two parents, not one...
Not necessarily, because it says "children" rather than "a child".
If it read "a child of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as a natural-born citizen", then you would be correct.
But it doesn't say that. It's vague on the question, as is the Constitution.
>> “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
>>
>> The pluralization of “parent” indicates two parents, not one...
>
> Not necessarily, because it says “children” rather than “a child”.
>
> If it read “a child of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as a natural-born citizen”, then you would be correct.
>
> But it doesn’t say that. It’s vague on the question, as is the Constitution.
And it is the vagueness that bugs me.
I am sure that our [domestic] enemies are working to destroy the Constitution, in all aspects — the destruction of the NBC-requirement would widen their pool of actors to place as President — as they fancy themselves to be elite, untouchable, nigh-unto-gods and thus free from any restraint. I am therefore quite uneasy in pulling for anyone who, even with best intentions, could be used to damage our already enfeebled Constitution further.