In general, I agree with you, although as I stated before, it doesn’t really matter what Mexican law says. What Mexican law says does not impact what the Constitution means.
At the same time, though, the “Natural Born Citizen” issue will invariably be a source of contention until the S.Ct. interprets it.
The problem is that there are really two concepts here, i.e. the question of whether you are a citizen, and the question of whether you are natural born. The argument over this typically is based upon a failure to separate those concepts.
The Constitutional history states that the purpose of the provision was to prevent a “foreign prince” from being President. They were concerned about a foreign nobleman moving to the US so that he could become the President. In fact, there was a movement by some at one time to recruit a Prussian prince to do just that. He turned them down, apparently thinking that it was not a very good opportunity.
The common understanding then was that you had to be born here. In reality, though, it’s a little more subtle than that. You just need to be an American from birth, in my opinion.
What bothers me about this type of effort is it is at best, deception disguised as ignorance(bringing false witness). When this type of suit is filed, it only casts negative light on those of us who have studied in order to put out ONLY the truth and thus fuels the mockers.
I reject it, I deplore it and most of all, God deplores it!
Not true. Nowhere in the history of the Constitutional Convention. Was that from Wiki?