Replies

The SCOTUS ruled on two occasions that you must be born in the country to citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. Helps to read the actual decisions instead of faither talking points.

The CURRENT US Supreme Court has had opportunities to rule on Obama’s eligibility on eight separate occasions: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz. But the High Court has denied Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to all eight appeals.

It helps to know what is going on the real world of 21st century jurisprudence rather than relying on birther talking points.

There has NEVER been a ruling by the US Supreme Court in the entire history of the republic on the issue of who qualifies under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution as a natural born citizen.

Current US law uses the term “Citizen-at-birth” to distinquish the two types of post 14th Amendment citzenship, the other being naturalized citizenship.
No distinction in the law has ever been made between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen.
“Nationals and US Citizens at birth:”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

Citizens at birth can be president (hence the 44th president of the United States), naturalized citizens cannot be president.

Citizens at birth can be president (hence the 44th president of the United States), naturalized citizens cannot be president.

This is true, but not completely true. Citizens at birth CAN be president, just not all — only the ones who are born in the country to citizen parents.