Yes a president must be a Natural Born Citizen. She or he cannot be a NATURALIZED citizen. When the Constitution says Natural Born Citizen that excludes two groups, all those who are not citizens (billions of people in the world, when you think of it) and all the citizens of the USA who were naturalized (varying numbers but often in the millions). That is all. There is no reference to the US-born children of foreign parents being excluded, and on reference to dual citizens being excluded.<quoted text>
Someone should show you how to comprehend Natural Born Citizen.....Research what that means...
READ IT...Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The Twelfth Amendment states, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide that "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."
Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens.
The first several presidents prior to Martin Van Buren, as well as potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution.
So, under strict construction (Remember that?) rules which say "if the Constitution does not say it, you cannot "read into" the Constitution something it does not say, neither the US-born children of foreigners nor even US-born dual citizens are excluded from being president. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant the US-born children of foreigners or US-born dual citizens from being president THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO---and they didn't. So, under strict construction, the US born children of foreigners and US-born dual citizens are eligible to be president.
And the same under libertarian moral principles. Under libertarian principles it is not allowed to take away ANYONE'S rights or privileges without the Constitution specifically limiting those rights or privileges. But the US Constitution does not limit the rights or privileges of the US-born children of foreigners and it does no limit the rights or privileges of US-born dual citizens. So, under libertarian principles, they have exactly the same rights and privileges as the US-born children of US citizens.
And, finally, we should assume unless there is evidence to the contrary that the writers of the US Constitution followed the strong principles of the Declaration of Independence, and that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." There is evidence, good evidence, that the writers of the Constitution did not consider slaves and Indians to be equal to others.
But there is NO evidence at all that they considered the US-born children of foreigners, such as the ancestors of many of us, to be inferior to the US-born children of US-citizens. IF they had thought so, they would have told us. but there is nothing in the writings of ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention, and certainly not in the writings of any of the men who confirmed the 14th Amendment (quite to the contrary, as the Bingham and Trumbull quotations show) that any of them considered that the US-born children of foreigners were unequal or should be distrusted.