[freedumb2003]

His father was foreign, he was a citizen of another nation at birth, ergo he was not a natural born citizen of the United States because he was subject to another juridiction.

That is not a true statement. Your "ergo" follows no known path of law.

Unless and until you have something that says otherwise, then being born on U.S. soil is sufficient. People born on U.S. Soil are citizens in every way shape or form. They can get a U.S. Passport just by showing their birth certificate and they can be drafted (should it come to it).

Your attempt at an "argument" fails on its face.

And makes us all look like loons.

[tanknetter]

Unless and until you have something that says otherwise, then being born on U.S. soil is sufficient. People born on U.S. Soil are citizens in every way shape or form. They can get a U.S. Passport just by showing their birth certificate and they can be drafted (should it come to it).

The question is a highly academic one: whether the citizen by birth provision of the 14th Amendment supersedes the "natural born" citizenship qualifier for President in Article II Section I. Citizenship alone, it's well-established, is NOT enough to be President - otherwise we'd have Arnold Schwarzenegger (naturalized citizen) trying to run.

I've studied the Constitution, from a variety of perspectives, for almost 25 years now (since AP Constitutional History my Jr. year of high school, and through college where I was a PoliSci major and took a LOT of Constitutional analysis classes) and to be really blunt I don't know the answer to that.

It's a HUGE ambiguous hole in the Constitution as amended. The fact is that the Radical Republicans who put the 14th Amendment together screwed up, at least in the sense that they didn't foresee, and act to mitigate, the possibly unintended consequences of their wording.