Well, I was actually in the middle of sending you a line from the very first link you sent: https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

This would include people born on US soil regardless of their parent's citizenship.

The only way that one can be a citizen without being born in the territory is to be a "natural-born" citizen, which is: of parents who are both citizens.

Correct, but we're not discussing that. We're talking about a person being born on US soil and their parent's are not citizens.

Your link is...interesting...but that's a private business that does bankruptcy referrals writing all of this. There are some good points brought up, similar to what you have stated, but I'm more compelled to believe the words by those who are constitutional experts, not a bankruptcy lawyer.

I did. Ambiguous wording has made it confusing, which is why I read the entirety of the article to gather more context clues. It specifically illustrates cases of people being born outside the US and still being qualified as natural born citizens

The article seems specifically for people like your cousin

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

While the Constitution does not define natural born Citizen, commentators have opined that the Framers would have understood the term to mean someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

A person born within the boundary of the United States, according to this article, would qualify

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/#:~:text=No%20Person%20except%20a%20natural,been%20fourteen%20Years%20a%20Resident

Did you read the entire article you linked? I did. It exclusively continues to refer to situations where citizens are born outside the US borders.

Actually, I have something. The 14th amendment, section 1, clause 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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-1/ALDE_00000811/

Well, there's a detail in this quote that might be overlooked with your summary:

“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”

This appears to be applying to cases where the child is born outside the US, seemingly excluding cases in which a child was born on American soil.

100%

RIght, that's my point. It's bad that u/catsfive did it.

The plain language of the constitution only says "natural born citizens." It makes no specific mention of the required nationalities of the parents. If we're going by plain language, then that's all we have to go on. Where is the phrase "natural born" specified to include the nationalities of the parents?

This is a good thing. All politicians should have their finances scrutinized.

So it's bad when MSM does it, but it's okay when we do it because MSM did it first? Is that the logic here?

This isn’t his passport

According to the Supreme Court natural born just means soil

It’s not Obama’s passport. It’s his dad’s

So…you made a clickbait title that lied just to get views? That’s not better, dude

but they have no power to dictate law

That's literally what they were created to do by the constitution.

I am very much asking this questions seriously. I'm not saying that the SC is infallible, but what evidence shows that what they're saying here is wrong? You say it was a term in international law at the time, but is it confirmed that's what is meant here?

If we pick and choose what the SC says is valid and not, then why do they hold any power at all?

You too!

oh. okay

Nothing. I think u/purkiss80 may have just jumped the gun on this one.

The interpretation of the constitution is assigned to the supreme court, though.

Sure, but speculation is just speculation.

But, regardless, as you quoted:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Frank was a commie and was into some pornographic fiction. He allegedly took naked photos of Stanley Ann (you can probably find them on the web). 0Bama's book mentions a family friend "Frank" that was also living in Hawaii at the time.

Cool...I'm not sure how that relates to Frank being his dad.

Yes, if you born here you are a US citizen. BUT the Constitution carefully explains that the US President and the VP must be a NATURAL BORN Citizen.

According to the supreme court, a natural born citizen is anyone born on american soil, regardless of their parent's nationality.

https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/natural-born-citizen-ceiling#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20stated,1898%20case%20United%20States%20v.

No it isn't