That, alone, disqualifies him.
I agree with you - but don't put the cart before the horse. This has never been determined by SCOTUS.
Article II, Section I specifies a "natural born citizen". The 14th Amendment specifies "citizen". The question is whether the citizenship specified in Article II, Section I is the same as that specified in the 14th Amendment when the person has dual nationality.
According to long standing tradition in the United States, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is ..." [Marbury v. Madison].
As yet, SCOTUS has not ruled on it.
From Amendment XIV, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
From the Constitution, some examples of changes made to it:
> Article I, Section 2: “[Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned...three fifths of all other Persons]*”
“*Changed by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment”
> Article I, Section 3: “[chosen by the Legislature thereof,]*
“* Changed by section 1 of the Seventeenth Amendment.”
> Article I, Section 4: “[on the first Monday in December,]*”
“* Changed by section 2 of the Twentieth Amendment.”
> Article II, Section 1: “[The Electors shall meet in their respective States...equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]*”
“* Superseded by the Twelfth Amendment.”
> Article II, Section 1: “[In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation,...until the Disibility be removed, or a President shall be elected.]*”
“* Modified bt the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”
> Article IV, Section 2: “[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State under the laws thereof...to whom such Service or Labour may be due.]*”
“* Superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment.”
Every edition I’ve seen of the Constitution has the same basic format to denote that something has been either modified, superseded, or changed. All of the above examples of changes made have three particulars in common.
The particulars are that (1) any portion affected by the change, modification, or by being superseded is enclosed in parenthesis; (2) that portion in parenthesis is accented with an asterisk denoting a footnote; (3) at the bottom of the page there is a footnote stating what Amendment applies to the portion modified, superseded, or changed.
In Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is the phrase, “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;...”. In every edition of the Constitution I’ve seen, the format is the same for that ‘natural born citizen’ phrase: NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE.
NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE at “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section 1 means there is no amendment having application to the natural born citizen requirement. It means that the “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” phrase in the 14th Amendment has no bearing on Article II, Section 1. It means that nothing in the 14th Amendment changed, modified, or superseded the Founders’ mandate that the president be a natural born citizen. It means the natural born citizen requirement stands as the Founders intended: a notch above any other form of citizenship - and a requirement reserved solely for those aspiring to the office of president.
NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE of the 14th to Article II means all liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist, communist moonbats who would like to continue allowing usurpers into the Oval, and who hammer away toward their goal of rendering the Constitution completely impotent can pound sand.