Then.........why in the world does the Constitution make the distinction? Here it is!
[Article II; Section I; No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There is no such requirement for Judges, Representatives or Senators. Why the distinction?
Because..... like it was commonly understood in the eighteenth century....a "Natural Born Citizen" was one whose parents were both citizens as well at the time of his birth. Otherwise.....don't include the phrase.... "Natural Born". Just say....."citizen".
The reason the framers insisted the phrase be included was because John Jay.....the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, had asked George Washington to make sure it was included. He felt the Chief Executive should be a person with no possible other allegiances. As with Barack Obama....it can be said he has a definite allegiance to his Father's country, Kenya whether or not he was born there. His father was not a U.S. citizen so it would be natural to also have an affinity for his father's homeland. This was what John Jay was attempting to avoid. He wanted to make sure the Commander in Chief had no such foreign entanglements. John Jay had also written many of the Federalist Papers and carried much influence among the framers of the Constitution.
It's actually not my argument. It's history.... but many folks have not been taught the Constitution during the last fifty years or so. When I was in grade school during the fifties we were taught what a "Natural Born Citizen" meant. The fact that government schools have not properly educated children in the Constitution does not make it my argument.
Again......if there is no difference in the two qualifying factors.....why spell them out? Use your head. The framers wanted a chief executive born of parents who were also citizens. That's why they specify, "At the time of the adoption of this Constitution"! Later on.....there would be no reason to worry about this qualifying factor as multitudes of qualified candidates would have been born to citizen parents. In 1789.....that wasn't the case.
Simple logic tells you why they included the words “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Without that they would of had to wait until John Tyler to have an eligible President, whose grandsons are still alive by the way.
A person born outside the borders of the United States, say London, England was eligible to be President if they were a citizen upon the ratification of the Constitution. Three who come to mind are Charles Lee, Horatio Gates and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had ambitions. His opponents had many arguments against him, but not his place of birth. Or his parents citizenship. His parents’ characters yes, but not citizenship status.
Article II - The Executive Branch, Section 1
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
How does the Constitution define citizenship?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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."
For those of you in Rio Linda, that means that persons born in the United States are “natural born” citizens vs. those not born in the United States that have to be “naturalized”. Note, that means there are ONLY two types of citizens; those born in the US and those not born in the US who obtain citizenship after birth. Ergo, those born in the United States are natural born citizens.
Nowhere are ANY US born citizens required to be prove themselves and deemed to more “natural” than “natural” by proving that at the time of their birth, one of both of their biological parents, were US citizens. Nada, nill, zip, zero.
Where some “birthers” and people from Rio Linda get themselves all confused is when a person is born outside of the US to one or more parent who are US citizens and whether or not that person is considered a citizen of the United States at birth, i.e. “natural born”.
Currently Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Codes states the following are citizens of the United States at birth:
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The underlined and * being important in that it deems that the children born outside of the US or in a US possession to US citizen diplomats, US citizen military personnel or to an expat American citizen or citizens working or living abroad are deemed to have been born in the US provided that, and only that they meet the stated conditions.
The first in bold is self evident. Persons born in the US are deemed citizens at birth, i.e. “natural born” citizens.
BTW, some say that Santorum isn’t eligible either because his father wasn’t a citizen at the time of his birth. Then there is this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2859724/posts?page=90#90 And this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2859724/posts?page=92#92