While one would hope that this is the way it would be interpreted if it ever came down to it, unfortunately the constitution it self does not define what a natural born citizen is, which has left it up to the supreme court.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
While I would agree that this is certainly how it should be interpreted (having a parent who is also a citizen) for the office of presidency, given the current climate of illegals having anchor babies, I doubt the supreme court would ever agree that this is the correct interpretation. The current laws on citizenship are just not strict enough for this interpretation to hold.
It is called original intent. We interpret the Constitution according to the language and definitions used at the time it was written. To do otherwise is to indulge in the "living document" nonsense that finds "rights" and "powers" that are nowhere written down. Unless, of course, you want the Constitution to be interpreted ad lib in accordance with prevailing political correctness. We have a choice, and we need to argue in favor of the truth. I hope you are in tune with that.
While one would hope that this is the way it would be interpreted if it ever came down to it, unfortunately the constitution it self does not define what a natural born citizen is, which has left it up to the supreme court. Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. While I would agree that this is certainly how it should be interpreted (having a parent who is also a citizen) for the office of presidency, given the current climate of illegals having anchor babies, I doubt the supreme court would ever agree that this is the correct interpretation. The current laws on citizenship are just not strict enough for this interpretation to hold.
It is called original intent. We interpret the Constitution according to the language and definitions used at the time it was written. To do otherwise is to indulge in the "living document" nonsense that finds "rights" and "powers" that are nowhere written down. Unless, of course, you want the Constitution to be interpreted ad lib in accordance with prevailing political correctness. We have a choice, and we need to argue in favor of the truth. I hope you are in tune with that.