[Michael Michael]

Well that convention under British common law may well rule here in any future case, but the interesting part is it seems that no one wants to define what natural born means.

They avoid it like the plague it seems, in our judicial system.

I don't see that it's been avoided by the plague. I mean, the only relevance of "natural born citizen" is with respect to the office of President (and peripherally Vice President). And the courts can only hear those cases that are brought before it. They can't just pluck some issue out of the air and rule on it all on their own.

There have only ever been 44 Presidents in the 200 plus years since Article II was written. The numbers simply don't give the situation much chance to arise.

So no, I don't see that it's been something that's been avoided like the plague.

Just to think! Arnold the Governator could have run for the presidency!

Actually he could have seeing as there's nothing to prevent anyone from running for the office. The only restriction is on who may actually hold the office.

But with regards to Arnie, there's one thing I think everyone can agree on. That no one who is a naturalized citizen can ever be considered a natural born citizen.

[El Gato]

Actually he could have seeing as there's nothing to prevent anyone from running for the office. The only restriction is on who may actually hold the office.

Actually the Constitutional language is "eligible *to* the office". I would think that would include running for it. But then again, no one "ran" for the office in the early days, and the electors were better known in their states than the candidates in some cases. And people voted for the electors, not for the candidates.

In any event, we need laws, at both the state and national level, requiring candidates for federal office to document their eligibility for the office for which they are running. Why would/should the country have it's time wasted by a candidate not eligible to the office?