[backwoods-engineer]

Oh dear... Not only are you confused but you seem to be contorted.

Not confused at all. Just because Justia.com attempts to hide the relevant case (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874]) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I quote from 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.

IANAL, but Obama should not be on ANY ballot. Do you dispute this? Are you on his side? Or the side of the Constitution?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

There exists nothing in American law disqualifying a presidential candidate for his parents’ birthplace.

[douginthearmy]

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.

A child born in a country to a mother who was its citizen and a sperm donor of unknown origin is a child of a citizen. Another child born in a country to a mother who was a citizen and a sperm donor of unknown origin is also a child of a citizen. One child born in a country of a parent who was its citizen plus one child born in a country of a parent who was its citizen equals "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

You guys do realize there is a reason that Mark Levin completely dismisses you right?