Replies

"It doesn't mention a requirement for both parents to be citizens ..."

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born ..."

It does not say "the children of a citizen" or the "children of any citizen" --- it says "the children of citizens". That's two ... plural ... mom ... dad ... easy stuff.

If you want to mince words and re-interpret the phrase to mean "any citizen", you must consider original intent, which was to protect the new USA from British insurgence immediately following the Revolution. The Founders, however, were forward thinking and realized that through their heirs, this new democratic nation (or any democratic nation for that matter) could be usurped via the machinations of government.

Their verbiage reflects their desire to see that those children raised under the influence of foreign laws and governments, or who may have an interest in foreign laws and governments, would *not* be eligible to direct the government of this nation. It is clear, logical, and for the good of us all -- even if it flies in the face of your chosen candidate. I support it. All patriots should.

As a leader, neither Obama or McCain is worth opening this Pandora's box. I'd toss them both for the good of the nation before rewriting the protections in our Constitution against foreign powers. It is that simple.

It does not say "the children of a citizen" or the "children of any citizen" --- it says "the children of citizens". That's two ... plural ... mom ... dad ... easy stuff.

You are misreading it. The word "citizens" does not impose a requirement that both parents be a citizen. The word is simply referring to all American citizens living abroad. It means the children of any American citizens living abroad.

"It does not say "the children of a citizen" or the "children of any citizen" --- it says "the children of citizens". That's two ... plural ... mom ... dad ... easy stuff."

So, then, only one 'set' of Americans can ever have children overseas? Because I 'minced' the plural 'citizens' to mean more than one citizen might actually dare to bear children overseas. Furthermore, your argument is weakened by the fact that at that time women were a protected class that by default acquired citizenship through their husbands if they weren't already. They weren't really factored in. Note the part about 'fathers who have never resided' and reconsider your position - they didn't say 'fathers or mothers'.