And they ought to! This isn't the first time this issue has come up. It's long overdue for being settled by law. No more juvenile games.
Democrats played the "NBC" card against Republican Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 when he ran against Wilson. Hughes' father was a British citizen. Sound familiar?
Here's the historical piece from "Chicago Legal News" laying the Democrats' argument: IS MR. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION?
The Supreme Court of the United States…has said that one born of alien parents in the territorial limits of the United States is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the presidential qualification clause and, further, said that “such (persons) not being citizens can only become citizens * * * by being naturalized in the United States.” (Elk v . Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94.)
The founders set different citizenship requirements for occupants of the highest levels of offices established by the Constitution. It is indeed ludicrous that anyone would believe the founders would require less than the highest known form of citizenship of candidates for the two highest offices.
The argument further supports the proposition that, as most here know, “anchor baby” citizenship is a liberal myth with no foundation in the law.
So long as state eligibility bills are silent as to the second leg of NBC, citizen parents, those bills are worse than fatally flawed, they tend to provide the way to an anchor baby president.
Is Trump the only one left to defend our Constitution (in a peaceful manner)?