Is his son with a US citzen born on US soil a NBC..since the father has dual allegiance?.
I can see why this hasn't been spelled out. There are a myriad of possibilities.. --
I'd say the child born of mixed citizenship is not eligible to be president, for the reason that his upbringing contains the possibility of him holding conflicting loyalty.
No doubt, this rule precludes good and even desirable persons from taking the office, but the pedigree being sought is shallow, to the parents only. No rule is infallible, as you point out a person may secretly be loyal to a foreign country, while professing and holding "legal allegiance" (born of US citizens and born in the US) to the United States. Just the same, the words "natural born" must have some purpose in the constitution, and the only purpose that makes sense to me is that the founders intended to provide the country with a sort of purity test, for the person who held the foreign-affairs powers.
I'm beyond pissed off at Congress, and didn't even take a serious look at this NBC question until a couple days ago. I am not surprised in the least that Congress is derelict in not acknowledging this controversy, let alone probing and resolving it in a respectful, convincing way. NBC isn't "personal," as against somebody. It's a condition that is an accident of birth, but that accident of birth is supposed to define the pool of people eligible to assume the office of President and VP.
That Congress blows it off is of no surprise to me. They've ruined everything they touch, education, the economy, military/terror courts, and now, the legitimacy of the president is in serious question on account of their dereliction.
My personal reaction is simple. I find the US government to be a banana republic, a nation of men, not laws, and morally illegitimate.
Well, I don’t think the founding fathers would be happy with our Congress who does not read the bills they vote for and other misc. things. But there was quite a bit of fighting etc that went on back then, too.
I look to the act of 1790 to see what was on their minds. There is a poster here who claims the passage of that law violated the Constitution and that is why the definition didn’t show in 1795.
However, some of the people involved with 1790 law were the same people involved with drawing up the Constitution - including the President who signed it into law. You can take the natural born citizen definition in that law and look at the first part of the law that defines citizen. Why define it if born overseas and not if born in country. Because it was already defined in their minds??? An alien could be a citizen and that citizen could confer natural born status if child was born overseas if it met their conditions. So why can that citizen confer status overseas but not in country???? Because they could confer it???
SO they did attempt it. Unclear why they took it out.
Maybe there are some notes they made that explain it.
This is just one way to look at it among many ways.
How many at SCOTUS think the C. is a living breathing document? Those are the people that may loosen the reigns of natural born citizenship.