"You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president."
If it isn't there then it can't be Constitutional law and as you know the Constitution makes the citizens.(see 14th amendment)
You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president. And, as noted earlier, Bingham also said:
Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen. Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)
Are you saying that Bingham was wrong?
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagans attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.
Are you saying that both Bingham and the Heritage Foundation book are wrong?
In fact, since that is also the way that the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which, BTW, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett), are you saying that the US Supreme Court is wrong?