Honey, are you serious?
Every part of the constitution has some sort of intent. It’s not just words.
Terms in the constition are used to express intent.
When someone has allegiance to a foreign gov’t, we don’t expect them to put our interests first. They may not even be able to fully understand what is in our best interest.
In order to protect us from such foreign allegiance, the constitution mandates natural born citizenship. If congress can change the definition of natural born citizenship, they can also change the definition of any other term in the constitution. If they can change the term to that of just a mere citizen, they have nulified the intent of the provision and altered the constitution greatly.
Even if you are born and raised in the US, if you are raised by people with allegiance to another country, that influence shapes your perceptions.
Do you understand?
And what allegiance does Obama have to a foreign government? By accident of birth? Because the father he barely knew was Kenyan? Allegiance to a country that he has never lived in and has visited a handful of times? Don't be ridiculous.
The Founding Father's believed that the president should have a connection to the country by birth. That he must be a natural born citizen. Nobody is disputing that, or doubting the wisdom of it. The courts and the federal code all make it clear that a natural born citizen is someone who is born here or, under certain specific conditions, born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent. Nobody is doubting the wisdom of that. But nothing, not in the Constitution or in the court decisions or in the law, says that if the child is born in the U.S. then both parents must be citizens for him to be a natural-born citizen. Citizenship status in conferred by birth within the U.S., and that status is that of a natural born citizen since that is the only form of citizenship identified in the Constitution other than naturalized. The law says that. And for you, or anyone else, to complain that the law violates the Constitution is flat out wrong. It may violate what you think the Constitution should say, but that's about it.
If congress can change the definition of natural born citizenship, they can also change the definition of any other term in the constitution.
And how can you say that Congress is changing the definition of natural-born citizen when that is not defined in the Constitution? What you are saying is that Congress does not agree with YOU on what a natural born citizen is. And there is nothing illegal with that.
Even if you are born and raised in the US, if you are raised by people with allegiance to another country, that influence shapes your perceptions.
So by your definition then, can a Jew be president since they are raised from birth with a certain level of loyalty to Israel? How could that not shape their perceptions and possibly their actions?
Do you understand?
I understand all the Birther arguments. I just don't agree with them.