[Conscience of a Conservative]

You are assuming that birthright citizenship (in cases where the parents are not citizens) was simply a mistaken interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Amendment was only intended to provide birthright citizenship (i.e., natural-born citizenship) to individuals covered by "NOTHING but American jurisdiction." But that's not what the Amendment says - as I noted above, the Fourteenth Amendment does not limit birthright citizenship to the children of people "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof," but rather to the children of people "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If they wanted to say "complete," they would have said "complete."

Also, how do you deal with children (like Obama, for instance) who are the child of citizens of different countries? Under your definition, Obama is clearly not a natural-born citizen of the United States, based on his father's Kenyan/British citizenship. However, it is just as clear, under your definition of natural-born citizenship, that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of Kenya or of Great Britain, based on his mother's American citizenship. As such, under your definition of natural born citizenship, children of citizens of different countries are not natural-born citizens of any country. This is an absurd notion - the idea that a person could be born so easily without a country is, frankly, nonsense, and you would be unlikely to find any legal, Constitutional, or historical support for that proposition.

[The Watcher]

Nonsense. Nobody said that Obama’s citizenship would be in question. Only his status as “natural born”.

Your nickname and argument are beginning to look a lot like shallow and expendient liberal coming here to argue. That’s ok, but understand, the lack of intellectual honesty in your argument is obvious.