Lots of people are citizens. But it takes more than being a citizen -- is he a -- here it comes -- a ´Natural Born´ citizen -- born of 2 American citizen parents -- not just a regular old citizen.

Now let´s settle back in my armchair.

#1 -- If that´s the case, how was Obama eligible?

The left has nothin but lies.

Being born to an American parent should trump and anchor baby being born of two illegal alien parents in the United States, neither of whom are US citizens.

It is is interesting that many of the same people who would say this about Obama being born to an American mother and AFRICAN father and support his citizenship would also seek to deny Senator Cruz´s citizenship.

They fear anyone with a backbone with a US Constitution in their hand and that Cruz has an audience and can show their disregard for it by not supporting, protecting, and defending it and its supporting laws.

When no one obeys the "law of the land" all we will have is lawlessness and anarchy with only a small group of people or a dictator in charge, one who is not necessarily a benevolent one to his political enemies.

We do NOT have a President today.

We do have an Unconstitutional Usurper.

In 1875, in the Minor Case, the US Supreme Court ruled that to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have TWO US Citizen Parents at the time of your birth. So for the Usurper, case CLOSED!!!

And everything the Usurper has signed it Constitutionally mute and void.

The real 44th President will have one heck of a mess to fix!!

Does that matter with a Kenyan in the WH?

Thank you #1. I´m so tired of trying to get through to people that both parents need to be citizens for their offspring to be considered as "natural born" and, therefore, eligible to become president.

I don´t understand why that is so difficult to comprehend! The Founding Fathers wanted two citizen parents to guarantee that the son (President) would not have divided loyalties.

Just think what that means about Obama. You can´t tell me that he doesn´t have divided loyalties! Because Obama´s mother was an American citizen, Barack was an American when he was born - no matter where that was*. His alleged father, Barack Obama, Sr. never, ever was an American citizen. Ergo, Obama is not eligible to be POTUS!

There are two question about Obama that our Supreme Court could clear up very quickly.
1. Is the "sperm donor" of Pres. Obama really Barack Obama, Sr.? If not, and the "sperm donor" is Frank Marshall Davis, who I believe was an American citizen, then Barry is eligible - no matter where he was born.

2. Did Obama surrender his U.S. citizenship when he lived in Indonesia? Did Barry ever apply to be reinstated as a U.S. citizen?

Can´t we please have a clarification, you Supreme Court Justices, before our Constitution and our nation is totally destroyed? If you agree that he is not eligible to be President, can we get on with the removal from office now?

*Obama´s mother needed to be of a certain age to confer American citizenship on Barry.

Both parents do not need to be US citizens for someone to be natural-born. One citizen parent is enough. Do children of one non-citizen parent have to be "naturalized?" No, because they are already citizens by nature--i.e., natural-born. Those who think otherwise are either ill-informed or wearing tin-foil hats.

York left out one small statement when defining eligibility on natural or native born and that the mother to be a resident of the US for 5 years prior to birth, BUT must also we of age (18 years of age) to confer US citizenship to the offspring. jugears ´mom´ was NOT 18 if she is the one who gave birth to him.
If Rubio is eligible than ANY anchor baby (crossing the borders to give birth here) is eligible. So says Byron York.

#10, Ann Dunham was born in Wichita, Kansas, on Nov. 29, 1942. Barack Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961. Dunham was a few months away from being 19 at the time of the birth, and a U.S. citizen herself.

When are we going to impeach Chester A. Arthur!

#9, Can you please tell me where you are getting your definition of ´natural born´ citizen as opposed to ´citizen´? Because I know where #1, gets his definition of ´natural born´ citizen as being born of two citizens of the United States.

#13--the plain language of the Constitution, in its ordinary meaning and as it has always been interpreted. There is not one case in the US Supreme Court--or any court in the United States-- that holds that you have to have two citizen parents to be entitled to citizenship by birth, which is the same thing as being natural born. For those that think otherwise, a little learning is a dangerous thing.

And, #12, while we´re retroactively impeaching presidents, let´s get rid of Tom Jefferson (mom born in England), Andy Jackson (both parents born in Ireland), Woody Wilson (mom born in England), Herbie Hoover (mom born in Canada), and Jim Buchanan (dad born in Ireland).

The Minor case was about women´s suffrage, and women´s eligibility to vote as citizens.

´natural born citizen´ So if BO was born in HI, and became a citizen of Indonesia and never reclaimed his US citizenship, He´s still a ´natural born citizen,´right?

One of these days I´m going to save and cut & paste my standard answer to this.

Natural Born - parents - BOTH - are citizens. In other words, a 2nd generation Amercan. Does not matter how the parents attained citizenship so long as they were citizens PRIOR to the child´s birth.

Native born (or just a plain old citizen) - one or none of the parents are citizens. Citizen by birth, not by parentage.

Naturalized - born a citizen elsewhere, legally immigrating, studying and passing the test for citizenship. This takes a few years.

Pardon a second post. #17´s post is a very clear definition of what "natural born" citizen means vs "native born" citizen and everything in between.

A person can be a citizen but may not be a "natural born" citizen. The parents of a natural-born citizen could certainly have been born elsewhere, but they became a citizen in time for the birth of the potential POTUS, unless they were around when the Constitution was adopted.

We need to remember that when the Constitution was written, the threat to our fledgling nation from European countries was still fresh in the Founders´ minds. Therefore, the term "natural born" was intended to carry a different meaning than the meaning of citizen.

The Founders feared that the nation might fall into the hands of foreigners who either wanted to confiscate our nation´s wealth and/or have power over its citizens. Thus, the "natural born" citizen clause was meant as added protection for the nation from foreign influence.

While the Supreme Court has "never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate´s eligibility as a natural-born citizen"*, the term and language as opposed by the simple word "citizen" implies a difference between the two. Also, the fact that representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens further emphasizes the distinction.

*the quoted statement is from Wikipedia.

The proper legal terms are:

jus soli right of the soil =born on US soil

jus sanguenas = right of blood = parentS are
citizens

oops - It should be #16´s post which is very clear.