[marty60]

Boy you guys are something else.

NOT according to the 14th Amendment:

June 13, 1866

States ratify 14th Amendment, granting former slaves citizenship and promising “equal protection of the laws”

National Archives and Records Administration
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

[Hotlanta Mike]

Ahnold Schwarzenneger is a citizen. Is he constitutionally eligbile to be POTUS?

We know what you are...

[SatinDoll]

The 14th Amendment has to do with citizenship, period. If you’re born here and your parents are legal resident aliens, then you’re considered a citizen by birth, or native born.

The Federal government recognizes three types of statutory citizenship:
-native born (jus solis)
-derived citizenship from parents (jus sanquinis)
-naturalization

See: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with eligibility requirements to be President per Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S.Constitution. Natural born citizenship is NOT a type of citzenship. It is an eligibility requirement to be President.

[NonValueAdded]

Once again you seem to be throwing out the words "natural born" when you consider the Constitutional qualification to be President. Note well that those words do NOT appear in the 14th amendment nor does the subject of Presidential qualification. Rubio's CITIZENSHIP is NOT the issue. His ability to meet the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN qualification IS the issue. You yourself peg the 14th's ratification date at 1868. Almost a decade LATER the Supreme Court actually touched on the subject in the case 88 U.S. 162 - Minor v. Happersett and spoke to what the framers meant by Natural Born while at the same time recognizing the 14th Amendment elsewhere in the case.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Yes, the Justices noted that there is a second school of thought and also with their own words say that they were not settling the question. Sadly, SCOTUS ducked the issue and left the doubts in place. So Obama's qualification and therefore Jindal's are much as settled law as anthropogenic global warming is settled science.

[Crazy ole coot]

Where in the 14th Amendment does it reference “Natural Born Citizen”? The 14th Amendment “only made citizens” out of former slaves. Were obama or Rubio former slaves?? They sure carry their age quite well.

[faucetman]

The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with NBC. It doesn't mention NBC. You need to do some checking right here on FR. It has been discussed to DEATH.

[Beckwith]

You are confusing citizenship with eligibility, as all the slow-learners do, so I built a chart to help your understanding:

http://theobamafile.com/NaturalBornChart.htm