[Tublecane]

“My point, however, is that there is a persistent tendency to confuse “natural born” and ‘native born’. They are not the same.”

There is a persistent tendency among people who don’t like Obama and/or anchor babies to argue seperate status for native and natural borns, but I’ve never seen that to be the case under U.S. law. Perhaps that’s because SCOTUS by chance has never ruled on a case concerning presidential eligibility, or if they have specifically about the eligibility of native borns. If they had, birthers’d esteem it as highly as Wickard or Plessy, and we’d be back to where we started.

There are, so far as the vast majority of professional and lay legal choppers are concerned, two categories of citizenship: born and naturalized. This phantom third category of born but not eligible to be president citizens seems to have popped up out of nowhere, and has never been glimpsed by me in the wild, as it were.

[Paine in the Neck]

It's got nothing to do with Obama, per se. It's about a Constitution that means what it says or a 'living Constitution' that means whatever you want it to. I would like it if every candidate of every party prove affirmatively his Constitutional qualifications before being allowed on a ballot.

This phantom third category of born but not eligible to be president citizens seems to have popped up out of nowhere, and has never been glimpsed by me in the wild, as it were.

So Madison, et. al., didn't know what they were doing when they specified "natural born" for president and in no other instance? That just slipped by them when they really meant "just plain ol' citizen".