I believe it is commonly understood to mean someone born in the United States or US territory. The term means what the courts say it means. You can disagree, or maybe tweet that these are "so-called" judges, but it doesn't change the fact that courts interpret the Constitution.
...how does a passage from Madison prove that the media is not seeking the truth? You still have failed to do this. But in regards to Madison himself he too believed that the Constitution should be fluid so long as there is a democratic people having a long, clear conversation about what their core values are. He says that conversation has to be long, thoughtful, sober, and learned, and guided by responsible statesmen who know what’s at stake and are educating people about what these basic issues are. Sounds like to be me that even Madison would accept the new amendments and rulings that have been cast over the years regarding this "Natural Born Citizen" issue that you are so hung up on.
You know Obama isn't the first president with a parent who was not born on US soil, right? The Constitution itself doesn't define "natural born citizen" but it has been defined by subsequent case law. The media gave this frivolous claim all the coverage it deserved.
and there's the words....paternal privilege...not maternal...needless to say, it does no longer apply to our population....you can be born to an American mother and be a citizen able to run for political office
What if the father is indeterminable? I guess you can't be president! Jesus (immaculately conceived and born in Jerusalem) was not qualified to be President! Sad!
Of course Madison would I presume. He did give us the amendment process, however none have changed the requirement. Perhaps you can point to the rulings. Congress I believe has ruled that McCain was qualified and that makes sense even though born in the Canal zone The children of Citizens are Natural born even though born abroad. The canal zone is his place of birth, not his citizenship. I believe they also ruled in the case of George Romney, and one other candidate that escapes my memory. None of these changes the requirement or alters the meaning.
Foreign Born US Presidents Preamble Though the Declaration of Independence was dated July 4, 1776, it took 13 years to win and confirm this independence on the battle fields. A recognizable new nation called the United States of America, with its own constitution and government was established only in 1783 through the treatry of Paris signed by King George the Third and the representatives of the United States of America. Prior to this date, anyone born in North America, presently known as USA, was actually born in a British Colony, controlled by England and was a citizen of England and pledged allegiance to the British Crown. Thus nine of the forty-three Presidents, who had served as president, were foreign born. These nine foreign born US presidents are listed hereunder: 1. George Washington (1789-1797) was born in 1732, in the British Colony of Virginia, and was a British subject, until the formation of the Government of the United States of America in 1789, when he became its first president. 2. John Adams (1797-1801) was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1735. 3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) was born in 1743 in the colony of Virginia. 4. James Madison (1809-1817) was born in 1751 in the colony of Virginia. 5. James Monroe (1817-1825) was born in the colony of Virginia, in 1758. 6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) was born in 1767 in the colony of Massachusetts. 7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) was born in 1767 in the colony of the Carolinas. 8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) was born in 1782 in the colony of New York. 9. William Henry Harrison (1841) was born in 1773 in the colony of of Virginia. He died in office from pneumonia. The tenth US president, John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First US born president
education is fascinating Marz.....topics of controversy are what fuel higher education. If you believe our first 9 presidents weren't foreign born, you must revere England as a parent country....not a foreign power.
Hahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahhah You can't? The media is on crack.
Upon losing the war, England lost all claim past, present and future, to America. No Certificate of Participation. This is how all countries are viewed in a legal sense pertaining to citizenship after a war or coup changes the country and it's governing principles. . People born in East Germany are now Germans. Indians born in America are now American citizens by birth. As far as I know, they make no claim to English citizenship.
You are correct sir. And thus the reason for exempting themselves of the requirement to be Natural Born citizens. None of the founders could qualify as you rightfully point out. "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
Perhaps you have a point. What would the amendment look like while serving the need? I think is fair to say they did intend to make it difficult for a foreigner to come to this country, father a child and educate him to become President. Well damned if that isn't just about what happened, but only because we ignored the Constitution. This sure as hell doesn't look like a US President's work with his allegiance to the US foremost in his mind. http://www.newsweek.com/us-gave-palestinians-221-million-obamas-last-day-office-547363
Our forefathers were born under British rule...as children they really claimed nothing until they grew up and revolted....the point was birthright not adult choices
