That argument, made by many FReepers as well, fails because it would allow US-born anchor babies whose parents were illegal aliens eligible to be president. I doubt this is what the founders intended at all. There was a very specific reason for the "natural born" language in the supreme law of the land.
You are correct. But the Founders didn’t foresee the 14th Amendment, a terribly flawed piece of law.
That argument, made by many FReepers as well, fails because it would allow US-born anchor babies whose parents were illegal aliens eligible to be president. I doubt this is what the founders intended at all. There was a very specific reason for the "natural born" language in the supreme law of the land.
I routinely cite the case of Rogers v Bellei to disprove the "born" argument. Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian Father and an American Mother. He was an American citizen at birth because congress passed a law declaring the offspring of a single American parent to be a "citizen." Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to meet residency requirements.
My point in bringing this up, is that a citizen born to a single American citizen (such as Bellei) is not a "natural born citizen" (in the meaning of article II) because a natural born citizen would not lose his citizenship for failure to meet a residency requirement. The only difference between Bellei and Obama is that Obama can claim 14th amendment citizenship *IF* he really was born in this country. Still not "natural born citizenship" but it is better than what Bellei had.
Anyway, the current title of this thread is not what I wrote when I created it. It has been changed somehow. I had no intention of getting involved in the Rubio discussion, I only meant to point out that Lawrence Solum did not believe the two citizen parents argument was crazy.