Replies

I’d like to pose a couple of questions.

We should all be able to agree that someone born of two citizen parents in the United States is a natural born Citizen of the US.

Do we agree on this?

We know what a natural born Citizen is. We just don’t seem to know what it’s not (at least some folks).

And to pose my other standard question, do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military?

If there’s a “misunderstanding” of a definition, it’s our misunderstanding, not the Founders’ failure to “define” a term in the Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what they were writing. But, they were counting on an educated populace to enforce the Constitution. They didn’t realize how much we could be dumbed down.

We should all be able to agree that someone born of two citizen parents in the United States is a natural born Citizen of the US.
Do we agree on this?

I agree with that as represented.

Since there are questions about anyone else (otherwise there wouldn’t be these long discussion threads) if a candidate did not meet this criteria, should it not be the candidate’s responsibility to prove conclusively that he/she is a natural born citizen also, as opposed to us having to prove they’re not?
I would say it is definitely the candidate's responsibility and it shouldn't be left up to a political party to do so. If the political party does so when it's false then they're guilty of fraud IMO.

...do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military?
Well in some cases yes. If they served on the British side...no. If they served on the American side...then yes.
That's why the clause was written the way it was. Loyalty was considered and easily proven.

And to pose my other standard question, do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against "Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military? If there’s a “misunderstanding” of a definition, it’s our misunderstanding, not the Founders’ failure to “define” a term in the Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what they were writing. But, they were counting on an educated populace to enforce the Constitution. They didn’t realize how much we could be dumbed down."

EXACTLY! Case closed.

I've given this example myself. I often use a head of the communist party in China is hear visiting. Wife, has a child while here on a two week visit. Takes the kid home and raises him as a loyal communist. According to BRET and others on this board that kid can come back to the US, live here for 14 years and be elected president at age 35.

If you believe that was the intent of the founders then you are beyond hope.

“to pose my other standard question, do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military?”

Yes, I do seriously believe that. I don’t just believe it, I know it for an absolute fact. For that is the clear and uncontroversial meaning of the Grandfather Clause.