Replies

I tell you what, I'll be gracious.
Start here...
HERB TITUS, ESQ., CORRECTS BRET BAIER OF FOX NEWS ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” DEFINITION

Better yet, since the relevant section isn't that long I'll post it.

“Bret Baier commits a common error. He assumes that "natural born citizen" means the same thing as "citizen by birth." They are not the same. A citizen by birth is one who by constitutional or statutory provision is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom they were born. Under Mr. Baier's view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law. If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baier claims they are, then by statute Congress can take away their natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship by birth. And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the constitution. Indeed, according to Mr. Baier, no one could have been eligible to be elected president UNLESS Congress passed a statute designating one's citizenship by birth, or until the 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth was ratified.”

“A natural born citizen, by contrast, is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended. A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship. The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time. By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why "natural born citizenship" is not defined in the Constitution. Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not. Such citizenship is God-given. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be "natural born" citizen of that state.”