I’m not satisfied at all. And apparently a lot of other people aren’t. If the constitution wanted any citizen to become President, it would have stated so.
It says “citizen” when it talks about Congressional requirements. But it specifies “natural born citizen” for President. Which raises the question what exactly did they mean. If they meant Vatel’s Law of Nation definition for natural born, then neither Ted nor Obama are eligible. Neither had both parents who were citizens and neither can show proof of birth in the U.S..
Yes well life sucks that way sometimes.
It says "citizen" when it talks about Congressional requirements.
Because the Constitution defines two, and only two, classes of citizen: natural born and naturalized. If you are not one then you are, by default, the other. So when the Constitution talks about "citizens" then it obviously means both kinds. A naturalized citizen can serve in Congress as can a natural-born citizen. But only a natural-born citizen can be president.
If they meant Vatel's Law of Nation definition for natural born, then neither Ted nor Obama are eligible. Neither had both parents who were citizens and neither can show proof of birth in the U.S.
And if they didn't mean Vattel? If they meant Blackstone instead? Or something in between? John Jay first raised the question of the natural-born citizen requirement for the presidency. John Jay's children were born in Spain and France when he was the diplomatic representative for the colonies. Do you honestly think that John Jay would purposely disqualify his children of possibly serving as president, over illogical questions of loyalty to a country through an accident of birth? Really?
In giving Congress the authority to create uniform rules of naturalization, the Constitution by implication gives Congress the power to define natural-born citizen. Because how can you enact naturalization laws without first identifying who doesn't need to be naturalized? And if they don't need to be naturalized then they are, by default, natural born.