No, it reads, “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…”

No amount of wishing it away will make it go away. Not all citizens are natural born citizens.

The biggest problem with citing these historical references is that they are no longer relevant to the 20th and 21st century. It doesn’t matter what Vattel said. It doesn’t matter what British law said. It doesn’t matter what Congress said over 200 years ago. That’s all been superseded by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which effectively defined “natural born citizen” as Jus Soli. That principle was affirmed in US v Ark. And, it has now been reaffirmed in Keyes v Obama just a week ago.

Since it was originally drafted, there have been 27 amendments to our Constitution. These amendments have all changed the original Constitution in one way or another. The 26th amendment, for example, guaranteed to citizens 18 years or older the right to vote. The 22nd amendment limited the terms of Presidents. The 18th amendment abolished liquor. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. In the same respect, the 14th amendment declared that Jus Soli was the law of the land. It hasn’t been repealed.

No amount of waxing eloquent about one’s knowledge of early American history can change that. No amount of hyperventilating one’s asserted expertise of Constitutional law can change that. It is what it is.

People may want to believe that there should be another definition for “natural born citizen.” But the only thing that can change the current principle of Jus Soli would be to amend the Constitution.

Additionally, all new bills and revised laws should be limited to a single subject, written in common English, and limited in length, therefore allowing average Americans (including politicians) to read and understand bills before the vote, and empowering Americans to know the laws without legal interpretation.

Additionally, all new bills and revised laws should be limited to a single subject, written in common English, and limited in length, therefore allowing average Americans (including politicians) to read and understand bills before the vote, and empowering Americans to know the laws without legal interpretation.

Under both U.S. and British law, the correct answer is ‘b.’

Former immigration laws prior to 1922 did not make reference to the alien husband’s race.[1] However, The Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to “alien[s] eligible to naturalization”.[2] At the time of the law’s passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for U.S. citizenship.[3][4] As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies, granting independent female citizenship only to women who married non-Asians. The Cable Act effectively revoked the U.S. citizenship of any woman who married an Asian alien. [Question: Was the Cable Act unconstitutional since it wasn't an amendment?]

The Cable Act had additional limitations: A woman could keep her US citizenship if she stayed within the United States, however, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil, for as much as two years, she could still lose her right to U.S. nationality.”

“The general doctrine is, (Doctrine is NOT law) that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance, and become aliens.”
That is irrelevant to loss of citizenship via statute.

Later court opinions on the matter are also irrelevant to the practice and policy of the government when the Constitution was written and ratified. I presume that at that time Ann Dunham could not convey U.S. citizenship to her off-spring while married to a foreigner who was not an immigrant. I don’t doubt that there was a statute by which that was possible in 1961 though it remains unidentified.

The question is “By what principle is John McCain a natural American citizen?” Answer that question and the problem of obama’s ineligibility will be clearly revealed.

Other pertinent questions are; “What is obama’s native country?” -and “What is John McCain’s native country?”