My guess is that this opinion will not hold.
Source of your statement?
I would like to hear arguments claiming that the 14th repealed article II. What are they going to say? That "Our citizens were natural before, but now they are even more natural!"?
Seriously, it is ridiculous to believe that you can change the meaning of "natural citizen" after the fact. "Natural Citizens" did not need the 14th amendment to be "natural citizens." (Minor v Happersett.)
And for what it's worth, a citizen with divided allegiance is not a "natural citizen." If you can be forced into another nation's army, you aren't the President we've been looking for.
Actually, the Supreme Court has said the 14th merely restates the definition of natural born citizen:
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683] “
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
There is not and has not been a requirement for two citizen parents for NBC status, even back in the 1840s:
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
Where, in the 14th, does it say anything about "natural born Citizen?"
Furthermore, if there is hidden text there that your privy too, or perhaps Congressional debate on the 14th that is in contradition to that of John Bingham's (multiple) remarks, from what did the 14th "modify" it to mean Jus Solis? In other words, what was the "original" meaning prior to the 14th in your opinion?
Judging by the quick response by resident Obots including Mr. Rogers, there is concern. The judge is obviously correct. But we have a compromised Supreme Court, with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Roberts joining the other three progressives. The Constitution has been weakened by many who believe, like Obama, that the Constitution constrains them from doing what they think our nation needs. The British-born Obama, naturalized by his own admission, could not have accomplished all he has done to redistribute our wealth, and move us toward Sharia law had the Constitution been respected. Roberts’ administration of the oath, knowing, as did all of Washington, of Obama’s alien father, was a strong clue, later proved correct by his Obamacare decision.
As FR comments show, most know that the 14th Amendment explicitly avoids any mention of natural born citizen. Its author explained why in his addresses to the House before passage. I won't quote John Bingham, having done so many times, but mention that “parents with allegiance to no prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty” in our naturlization oath comes from Bingham’s speech to the House, "...of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." Our Immigration and Naturalization Service is built upon Bingham’s Naturalization Amendment, which should be no surprise. The Congress defined the requirements for parents whose child would be eligible to be our president. Before that states retained their pre-constitution naturalization laws, all of which contained oaths of sole allegiance, but some of which discriminated in ways inappropriate to a free republic.
The Judge is only confirming what was obvious until 2008, after the second of two Senate Judiciary hearings initiated by Obama campaign committee members, when the WaPo, NYT, LA Times, etc, stopped carrying reviews of legal opinions about McCain's ineligibility. Obama himself with McCaskill, filed SB 2678 in Feb., and McCaskill with Leahy filed SR 511 in Apr. 2008. Both actions, a bill, the “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act” which failed to pass out of committee, and a resolution, SR 511, emphasized that “citizen parents” were the prime critereon for every US Senator's agreement that McCain should be considered and NBC. They felt that the congressional oversight resulting in the Canal Zone remaining unincorporated should be ignored, because that is not what the framers intended with Article II Section 1. The key issue to all our senators in February and April of 2008 was that a president must have been born to citizen parents.
Twice between 2002 and 2006 John Conyers tried to pass amendments to Article II Section 1. His amendments, which would have made Obama eligible, failed of course. All twenty six attempts to amend Article II Section 1 have failed, including Orrin Hatch’s, to make Schwarzenegger eligible. There were three other attempts between 2002 and 2007, one by Menendez and a couple of others, Our political parties, both of them promoting ineligible candidates, decided that Article II Section 1 was a political risk. Too few would understand it, and for Republicans, raising Obma’s ineligibility would certainly incur racism charges, probably accompanied by riots, which were in fact promised by James Carvill, managed by by Acorn and the SEIU. Hillary was just sitting there, knowing Obama was ineligible, ready to take over the nomination.
Obots will continue to generate fog with Wong Kim Ark, in which Minor v. Happersett's definition of who are natural born citizens is Justice Gray's first citation. Mr. Rogers will dig up more obscure citations that lead to nothing, but look scholarly. Don't waste your time. He and Dr. Conspiracy have run out of anything written in a prevailing Supreme Court decsion, turning to quaint decisions from state courts and overturned federal judges, or the idiotic Indiana decsion, which cites Leo Donofrio's discovery and claims Chester Arthur's contempories knew what Donofrio discovered.
Lawyers objecting to Wong Kim Ark would long ago have found that Gray was inconsistent with his own citation, and forced the retraction of the Wong Kim decision if Gray had even implied inconsistency. He obviously didn't, and rendered Wong Kim a citizen. Besides that, a decsion or interpretation by the Supreme Court cannot be altered by implication. Changes must be explicit. Nothing changed the Minor decision - ever.
But with the current court, reinterpretation might be possible. Roberts is a progressive. No law (thank you Leo Donofrio) imposes respect for precedent. Precedent is a convenience, a tool, the way a mathematician can use an established theorem without proof, or a programmer uses system services. A court that strongly supports the progressive notion of a "living Constitution" might reinterpret Article II Section 1. If they did so at least we would know that the son of Islamic radicals, illegally in Arizona, raised in and provided scholarships by our taxes, who prays in Wahabi Mosques supported by our taxes through exemptions, and defended by our public interest law firms, paid by our taxes, is now eligible to be president. We seem now to have no legal right to see his/her passport, student records, federal aid, or birth documents. We know his parent's allegiance, but have removed the provision, Article II Section 1, that pertains to the allegiance of parents. Parents no longer matter, as if we even know who Barry's parents were. Any oaths he commits to are protected by his religous adherance which ordains Taquia, lying to Infidels. We are almost all infidels, and we approved of the changes to our laws which made lying to us legal, as well as enabling death panels and promoting the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of the Middle East.
As ridiculous as that scenario sounds, remember that if we believe Percy Sutton, a decorated Army Air Force Pilot, Charles Rangel's and Malcolm X's and Louis Farrakhan's and the Muslim Brotherhood's attorney, respected borrough president of Manhatten and close friend of Harvard University, our current president had Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal as his patron. Since the friend who approached Sutton to help Obama with his admission to Harvard law has been a Wahabi recruiter and attorney to bin-Talal since the mid-70s, and converted to Islam, changing his name from Don Warden, Black Panther founder, to Khalid al-Mansour, in 1968, it can be assumed that his ward, Obama, sympathizes, if he is not himself Muslim - which seems unlikely. Since Obama has hidden most every other record from his past, and since Sutton was always an upstanding officer of the Court, his word is probably more credible than Barack's or David Axelro's, or Vernon Jarrett's daughter-in-law's, all of whom worked for openly Marxist and Communist organiations where the end justifies the means. How is that different from Taquia? Honoring, respecting and protecting the Constitution, Article II Section 1, would have protected us from this mess.
The Supreme Court is only valuable if it's decisions are respected, and that respect is diminishing. It won't resolve cases John Marshall said "it must address", cases where only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, in this case, Constitutional Interpretation. Perhaps your judge will force the final court of appeals to decide the issue, or, by inference, not act, agreeing with the judge who said what has been repeated by many justices, that there are two classes of citizen recognized by the Constitution, natural born, and naturalized citizens, and they are clearly distinct. Only a natural born citizen may be president. Justice Gray affirmed, in Wong Kim Ark, that they share the same rights. Being president is not a right, but being natural born is a Constitutional requirement.
Not according to the Senate. Not according to Homeland Security Chertoff. Not according to Hillary. And not according to Obama who signed his name not once but twice to the definition of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS in Senate Resolution 511.