[Melas]

For the person of unknown parentage, I recognize that it is a life hardship to have been born under that circumstance, but life is not always fair. If someone has difficulty affirmatively establishing that they meet the criteria for becoming President, then the citizenry should not look favorably on that candidacy, even if it is of no fault of the person.

So which is it? Is natural born citizenship a form of legalistic arcana as the above would suggest, or a common sense directive to insure that our leaders owe allegiance to no foreign power? If the latter, then this nonsense about unknown parentage is just that, nonsense. You can't exactly be entangled by any allegiance your father may or may not have had, if you don't know who the Hell he is now can you?

No, your post pretty much confirms my opinion about the subject in general. Those who are most passionate about the issue aren't really concerned about anything important. Rather they're consumed a pedantic devotion to legalism. They make as much sense as the rare (but existent) nutbar who insists that the Air Force is unconstitutional because the constitution only addresses sea and land forces.

[Political Junkie Too]

Call me pedantic if you wish, but I don't think we adjust the Constitution for a one-off situation. And I do not equate it to calling the Air Force unconstitutional because only land and sea were mentioned.

As I wrote earlier, I believe that NBC's are the Posterity of We the People, as laid out in the Preamble. We the People are citizens, and their Posterity are their citizen children. The Framers wrote that they wanted to secure liberty for themselves and their Posterity. That is the hereditary nature of nations.

-PJ