[sometime lurker]

A citizen by the soil (native-born) is NOT eligible to be President unless he is also a citizen by blood (natural-born).

What proof do you have that this is the case? I've seen lots of opinion about this, but no proof.

[MamaTexan]

The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
— John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

-----

Should a person be born here and their parents DO owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty, they are native born.

Many FReepers like to quote the case of Wong Kim Ark as 'proof' that all one needs to be Constitutionally qualified for the office of President is to be born on US soil, but there's one little detail-

Wong Kim Ark petitioned the court as a NATIVE born citizen, not a natural born one.