In order to understand the controversy regarding Presidential eligibility, Americans must first disabuse themselves of the notions that politicians obey the law and journalists tell the truth. As a class, neither is driven by service to the nation, but by political expediency to protect and enhance their own financial interests.
Although politicians and journalists would have you think otherwise, the laws defining Presidential eligibility are unambiguous.
In addition to being over the age of thirty-five and a resident of the United States for fourteen years, Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen.
The term “natural born citizen” was well-known during the time of the writing of the Constitution from Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (1758), which stated “natural-born citizens are those born in a country of citizen parents” (Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212).
Subsequently, the binding Supreme Court precedent Minor vs. Happersett (1875) defined a natural born citizen as a US citizen born to two US citizen parents at the time of birth.
According to that definition, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum are ineligible to be President. None of them fulfill the requirement of natural born citizenship because at least one parent was not a US citizen at the time of their births.
Why is there a controversy? Because, I repeat, politicians and journalists are driven by political expediency in order to protect and enhance their own financial interests.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/