The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born†citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth†or “at birth,†either by being born “in†the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.†Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien†required to go through the legal process of “naturalization†to become a U.S. citizen.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Now that I have answered your question, answer one for me. Do you even know where the Natural Born Citizen clause originates from? I mean who instigated it and why?
The term "natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution.( snip because of all the messy unicode chars )
So the answer to my clear question is *no*, you have no idea where it originates from and its original intent. That's all you had to say. You need not quote some modern revisionism ( "weight of legal and historical authority" ) attempting to define NBC when the original intent of the clause is readily available and has been for at least eight years. I mean, "Original Intent" was the point of your posts correct?
Article II Facts :: Constitutional Convention.
Alexander Hamilton's suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
John Jay wrote a letter to General Washington, the President of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention ...
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
General Washington handed the suggestion to the framers and the rest is history. As we are talking original intent, no "weight of legal and historical authority" is required to get this far. This is about "foreigners".
Eight years ago, despite legal challenges to Barry, the first known case of a half-foreigner, ( and thanks to the failure of a single one of the 538 electors to stand up, and of VP Cheney to assert his power as President of the Senate ) the Supreme Court chose to punt this back to us to decide for ourselves. This is where we are now.
So, what constitutes a foreigner? That is really the question at hand. A person born outside one of the United States is obviously a foreigner. A person born of a foreign parent is at least one half foreigner ( unless you want to make believe that other half does not exist or is trumped by the USA half ). To say there merely requires a drop of USA citizen DNA is to also say that eventually the entire world will be NBC once enough time elapses.
Of this situation is where the simple proposition that a Natural Born Citizen is the offspring of USA citizens born in the USA. It is not a figment of our imaginations. It is the only algorithm that yields a clean solution. Sticking with the boolean model ...
USA born AND citizen mother AND citizen father = NBC
... has inexplicably been altered and bastardized, diluting the requirements for the highest office in the land to ...
USA born OR citizen mother OR citizen father = NBC
And that is where we are now in our enlightened modern age thanks to Barry, McCain, Romney, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and their sycophant followers and the enemedia. And no-one can provide evidence of similar cases from earlier elections aside from Goldwater and Chester A. Arthur. It must be a huge coincidence, right? Wrong. It is severe revisionism.
On top of all that we are left with the ridiculous proposition that people like myself 3/3 NBC is actually equal to 2/3 NBC like Barry or McCain, or even to 1/3 NBC like Cruz or Rubio. This is an attack on Americanism, a truly globalist agenda.
All that is left is to now get those 0/3 NBC people qualified. And guess what? We're almost there already thanks to the two steps now acceptable to many folks. The question becomes, just how long can our Constitution really survive such revisionism?
( pinged a couple others for their Constitutional insight )