Excuse my ignorance — what part of that section of US code define’s “Natural-Born” citizens? I see where it speaks to citizenship. Schwarzenegger is a citizen. So what?
Obviously, there is *no* U.S. code that defines “Natural-Born” as stated in the Constitution regarding qualifications for the office of President. Vattel’s Law of Nations defined it as being born in country by two citizen parents. ie - having no birth-allegiance to any other nation-state (the reason for the term “natural-born” I would surmise). Vattel even mentioned that citizenship flows from the father.
That other presidents may or may not have had “natural-born” issues does not invalidate the US Constitution nor does it set a valid, court-defensible precedent. The current issue would need to be resolved by the SCOTUS; but that likely won’t happen before Obama’s term is up. Even so, that does not mean it shouldn’t be pursued, if only to establish a SCOTUS precedent for future presidential candidates.
>>Obviously, there is *no* U.S. code that defines “Natural-Born” as stated in the Constitution regarding qualifications for the office of President. Vattel’s Law of Nations defined it as being born in country by two citizen parents. ie - having no birth-allegiance to any other nation-state (the reason for the term “natural-born” I would surmise).<<
Show me a single court case where Vattel has been used as a basis. Show where in the USC it says Vattel applies.
By your reasoning NO ONE can be a “Natural Born citizen.”
You are splitting hairs you aren’t even qualified to address.
I say again: STOP!
Birthers asked for the COLB — we got it, issue over.