It is very rational to assume that a court, if asked to define, “Natural Born Citizen”, would rule that this simply means “Citizen When Born” -— That Citizenship was NOT due to Naturalization, but instead due to Birth.
It is very rational to assume that any Court would look at the laws of Citizenship, as they applied at the time of Birth, to make such a ruling.
No Naturalized Citizen may ever be POTUS.
If you are a Citizen, and were NOT Naturalized, and you were not granted Citizenship due to adoption, and you were not granted Citizenship by any retroactive law, but were a Citizen with your very first breath?
Well, then there is no Constitutional bar to you being POTUS.
That’s where we differ, Kansas. It is equally rational to assume that allegiance-in-birth and jurisdiction-in-birth combined define “natural born”. And there is historic precedent documented sufficient not only to support this position but to deem it as *declaratory*, a legal term, in my mind and in numerous others. That is why it is imperative that the legislature and court systems not shirk their responsibility yet again in this matter. What was common sense in the days of Washington is no longer the case today. We can at least agree that the “birther bill” is a much needed step in the right direction. Yes?