> If he was born in the USA, he’s naturally born. Anyone born here is naturally born. <
I agree with you, Mr. K. To think otherwise would restrict freedom. And I’m all about interpreting things to allow for as much freedom as possible.
Here’s a situation to consider. A person was definitely born in the United States. He has proof positive. But his mother slept around a lot. She has no clue who the father is. He could have been an American citizen. He could have been a Greek sailor or a visiting Swedish diplomat. Is this person eligible for the presidency? I’d say yes.
However, I have no problem with folks who think otherwise. The term “naturally born” is rather vague. So I’m of the opinion that both sides of the debate should be respected.
Until, of course, a constitutional amendment clears everything up.
“Here’s a situation to consider. A person was definitely born in the United States. He has proof positive. But his mother slept around a lot. She has no clue who the father is. He could have been an American citizen. He could have been a Greek sailor or a visiting Swedish diplomat. Is this person eligible for the presidency? I’d say yes.”
A semi-foundling.
An interesting “special case”.
If no father is available to claim such a domestically-born child at the time of birth, or to appear on the Certificate of Birth, and the child were to decide at least 35 years later to run for the U.S. presidency, let him or her make the NBC argument. The Supreme Court could probably justify finding in such a candidate’s favor.