The "definition", or the means to identify a (U.S. {implicit}), "natural born Citizen", is currently ASSUMED to be "ambiguous", and that ambiguity creates a "legal-loop-hole" that at once makes the provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other conditions of U.S. Citizenship.

The intellectual dishonesty and incompetence of the assumption is astounding given that immediately following the Ratification of the COTUS the 1st Congress, in March of 1790, expressed the "attendant circumstances" required to be considered as a U.S. natural born Citizen at birth within the Constitutionally mandated plenary power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization at A1S8C4.

Unfortunately any discussion on the subject of "citizenship" requires a primer in order to establish certain FACTS in order to comprehend how the various distinguishing circumstances of acquisition of citizenship can be identified.

ALL "citizens" are "made" in the 1st instant, without which there can be no "natural" perpetuation of citizenship giving rise to "natural born citizens". (See Aristotle, Politics, Bk III, Pt II).

In order for "natural perpetuation" to occur its acknowledgement must be provided for within the particular society, whether by "doctrine" or "private law decrees", i.e., a provision of law codified as a statute.

I have for years been saying that most of the "Birther gurus" have been on the wrong track, quoting old English Common Laws and misguided SCOTUS Opinions ........... instead of BLACK LETTER LAW, ...........

An Apologetic * on the subject of
U.S. natural born Citizen
as construed under the Federal Laws
of the
Constitution
of the
United States of America

The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V is the "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision", i.e.,

" ... 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 ; … "

The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V is the "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision", i.e.,

" ... 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 ; … "

The "definition", or the means to identify a (U.S. {implicit}), "natural born Citizen", is currently ASSUMED to be "ambiguous", and that ambiguity creates a "legal-loop-hole" that at once makes the provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other conditions of U.S. Citizenship.

goo.gl/W8KZmf
http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-...

There is NO "de facto officer" statute that covers the Office of Potus......... there is NO statute of limitations on the civil & political offense of USURPATION of the Executive Branch Offices of POTUS / V-POTUS .....

You are a total moron and continue to sprew total bullshit.

The 1790 Act CONTAINS the term of words in question, so you turn your back on it without even TRYING to understand its usage in the Act and the effect of the subsequent Repeal & Replace 1795 Act.

You have no desire for the TRUTH, your happy to follow the other morons over the cliff ....

.....end

It is obvious from your 1st to your last statement that you have NO IDEA what you are ranting about......

FYI, there is NO Jus Soli and/or Jus Sanguinis doctrines in US Law.

The ESTABLISHED uniform Rule is the "Right of US Citizenship" that attaches to a person when they become a US Citizen, at birth or otherwise.

It would be OBVIOUS to you if you took the time to try and follow the ACTUAL LAW on the subject.

The EFFECT of "Right of US Citizenship" can be characterised as;

" Once a person becomes a US Citizen, then to too do their children, at birth or otherwise, any where in the world; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ..."

Try studying the ACTUAL Acts and try to comprehend the intended effect on the various attendant circumstances ...
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web...

Also read here;

goo.gl/W8KZmf

The comma separates them as SUBJECTS only as the word AND after the comma "RECONNECTS" the two SUBJECTS to be uniform throughout the United States.

To say otherwise would be flying in the face of 226 years of Constitutional Law on the two (2) SUBJECTS.

Just do not attempt to dissuade me from the TRUTH with your ill informed understanding of, well, of anything as far as I can tell from your pseudo rants.

Go ask Mario Apuzzo if HE has found any fault with the Proposition of Constitutional Law on the subject yet....????

I said learn the language and vernacular of Statutory Construction and Interpretation which requires learning the usages of commas, colons and semi-colons and other devises to denote various IMPLICIT functions or natures of the CONSTRUCTION of STATUTES.

You have no idea what you are saying and how very silly it is.....do you..(!?!)...don't bother to answer.

Well there is something obvious ..... what we have here is a failure to communicate ....

Read the ACTUAL Constitution and learn how to read & interpret Statutory Construction, which is the language and vernacular of it.

....and then go to this link and pay particular attention of commas, colons & semi-colons... and good luck with the rest of your life ....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei...

Well, you make it obvious that I do have superior knowledge on this subject than you.

Try this question, since the others are apparently beyond your abilities.

Where is the limitations made by the Constitution on the authority of the Congress on the subject of US Citizenship & naturalization thereof ...?

Hint:

The Congress shall have power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, ... throughout the United States; A1S8C4 COTUS .....?