Sorry, BirfoonLady, but an incoherent revisionist rant from a birfoon web site is not a credible authority.There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a naturalized citizen, or just a citizen, as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.
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.
The words born or naturalized are joined with the conjunction or, and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not a natural born citizen. This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is subject to the jurisdiction confers the coveted natural born status. If the term citizen did in fact convey a natural born status, then who were naturalized would be considered natural born.
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring natural born status on anyone,... and bestows the coveted natural born citizen title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens. <<--<<<
As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that a natural born is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor.
If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has.
But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred.
If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.
The entire birfoon argument above is based upon fundamental failure to comprehend straightforward English grammar and straightforward logic.
If "persons born or naturalized ... are citizens" means they are exactly equivalent in every way, then the statement "persons who are natural born citizens or naturalized citizens are Citizens" would be equivalent in every way for the same reason, which cannot be true. Clearly the assertion that the conjunction 'or' imparts exact equivalence to the pair of terms according to this syntax, is FALSE.
Grow up. A middle school child could understand your folly.