Your theory that both parents must be a citizen of the United States to produce a natural born citizen is a theory that you are free to use when you evaluate candidates for President. Other people have other theories.
Again, Obama did not have two parents who were citizens. Did the Supreme Court believe that he was qualified to be President? Of course, they did. Many of them attended the inauguration ceremony. The Chief Justice even presided over the ceremony and administered the oath of office.
So, you have your theory about the natural born citizen clause and that is fine. But, the Chief Justice and I are entitled to utilize our own theories in selecting the President and we are going to continue to use them. Our system has worked pretty well for more than 200 years and if we decide that it needs to be changed, we will amend the Constitution.
Thanks for your view.
I have no clue whatsoever why you keep dragging in the topic of courts ruling on the qualifications of presidents. I never mentioned it. Are you trying to evade the issue.
“Your theory that both parents must be a citizen of the United States to produce a natural born citizen is a theory that you are free to use when you evaluate candidates for President. Other people have other theories.”
“Your theory”?
Interesting tidbit from Wikipedia on “theory”:
Charles Evans Hughes[edit]
The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, one of Woodrow Wilson’s campaign workers, and published on December 7, 1916 in the Chicago Legal News — a full month after the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father was not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen (in fact, both his parents were British citizens and never became U.S. citizens). Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also (according to British law) a British subject and therefore “enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance”, Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: “Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a ‘natural-born’ citizen of the United States.” [78]
“Did the Supreme Court believe that he was qualified to be President? Of course, they did?”
The Supreme refused to take up the topic based on what you have previously stated that the courts are not the ones to make that kind of decision. But it is interesting that you use the Supreme Court as the correct default position of what is and is not Constitutional.