[wndawmn666]

I tried to post this awhile ago but it didn’t go through. I have added further clarification at the bottom.

Fact: We know that the Framers recognized a difference between US citizens and natural born citizens.

We don’t need to look FOR the definition of natural born citizen.

We need to be looking AT the definition of a US citizen (which would be what is required to serve as Senator or Representative but isn’t quite enough to let one serve as President).

14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This gives the SAME type of citizenship to those who are either:

1. BORN in the United States

OR

2. NATURALIZED in the United States

A child BORN on US soil receives the SAME type of citizenship as someone that is naturalized. There are three ways to achieve the label of ‘citizen of the United States’.

A child BORN on US soil to two foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.

A child BORN on US soil to one foreign parent and one US citizen is a citizen of the United States.

A person naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States.

All Citizens of the United States can serve as Senators and Representatives. They cannot serve as President. Citizens under the 14th amendment cannot be President. They all have the SAME type of citizenship.

So, now that we’ve figured out who CAN’T be President, who is left that CAN?

A person with two US citizens as parents.

[freepersup]

Thank you for your well thought out explanation. I was seriously considering shooting my monitor in the same vein as what Elvis did... the over abundance of devil’s advocates >>> here at FR <<< with the demand for proof as to where natural born citizen is defined explicitly and further etched in granite within the Constitution, makes me want to pull my hair out. One way of saying it is that; some meanings have to be, seemingly ‘reverse engineered’ to get the Founders’ full intentions, and there in lies the crux of the matter. I am bailing out... off to the showers. Good night all! ;o)

[BP2]

For those who haven't actually seen it, here's a copy of the famous letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention where he suggests the President be a natural born Citizen.

Notice how John Jay has highlighted the word "born". On the Constitutional drafts, he underlines "born" in all instances.

[Citizen Blade]

All Citizens of the United States can serve as Senators and Representatives. They cannot serve as President. Citizens under the 14th amendment cannot be President. They all have the SAME type of citizenship.

The 14th Amendment does not deal with the issue of natural-born citizenship. It was meant to address that fact that slaves were not being treated as citizens in the former Confederate States. The 14th Amendment makes it clear that if you are born in that US and subject to US jurisdiction, then you are a citizen. That's it. You're reading more into it than is there.

[calenel]

"So, now that we’ve figured out who CAN’T be President, who is left that CAN?

A person with two US citizens as parents."

You are trying to wish into existence a distinction without any basis in the Law or the COTUS. If you can prove otherwise, please do so, and stop just posting the same unsubstantiated garbage over and over again.