24 January 2013

Inadequacies of the classical liberal theory of government.

Schmitt's The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy was first published in 1923.* In this work, Schmitt described the dysfunctional workings of the Weimar parliamentary system. He regarded this dysfunction as symptomatic of the inadequacies of the classical liberal theory of government. According to this theory as Schmitt interpreted it, the affairs of states are to be conducted on the basis of open discussion between proponents of competing ideas as a kind of empirical process. Schmitt contrasted this idealized view of parliamentarianism with the realities of its actual practice, such as cynical appeals by politicians to narrow self-interests on the part of constituents, bickering among narrow partisan forces, the use of propaganda and symbolism rather than rational discourse as a means of influencing public opinion, the binding of parliamentarians by party discipline, decisions made by means of backroom deals, rule by committee and so forth.[1]
As an example of our failure – one among countless others, as you well know – consider how in the last election the candidate of a major political party failed to raise the issues of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office of president and the obvious forgery of Obama's birth certificate. These are important issues and susceptible of discussion in a straightforward manner using concepts that are easily understood.

For example, are "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" synonymous? What did "natural born citizen" mean to the drafters and ratifiers of the Constitution? Do we wish to be bound by a government of laws or of men who can change the meaning of terms in the Constitution when it is convenient for them to do so, when whim calls for change, or when narrow, selfish interest calls for change? Would the concept of "natural born citizen" have prevented what we have now – a usurper with a parent who was a polygamist, a communist, a Muslim, and someone who can't be bothered to salute when the national anthem is being played?

Similarly, it's a simple question to ask if (1) there are what are called "layers" in the document purporting to be a truthful record of Obama’s birth and connection to Hawaii that was posted on the internet by Obama and (2) there are lines drawn in that document that could only have been done in a computer graphics program that happens not to have been in existence at the time of Obama’s year of birth?

So we see that fundamental questions vital to the health of this country -- that likes to think of itself as blessed by American "exceptionalism" and as the epitome of classical liberal government – were ignored. Completely.

Who decides what we are worthy to hear during our elections? And what is left of the magnificent experiment started in Philadelphia? I know. If anything has gone wrong, it must have been perverted by fundamentalist Christians, gun nuts, racists, greedy corporations, drooling haters, and rich people.

Now that we know this, can't we please get back to the serious business of politicians pissing away the wealth of the people and stealing their liberties?

Notes
[1] "Carl Schmitt (Part II). The Concept of the Political." By Keith Preston, Alternative Right, 8/31/10 (emphasis added).

13 comments:

smrstrauss said...

Obama really was born in Hawaii, as shown by the birth certificate (short form and long form) and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data file and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers.

And every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. That is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett.


“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 Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

Col. B. Bunny said...

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and kindly forgive my lengthy delay in responding. I travel a lot and the last two weeks especially have found me dealing with some back pain. Intergalactic pain as you might imagine. Trust me on that one.

There are considerable subtleties in the questions of the Obama birth-related documents. The evidence of the forgery of the certificate posted on the WH website shows that an unrelated but closely antecedent document was incorporated into the supposed "valid" certificate. I think it was the Hawaii governor himself who claimed he was going to get this all sorted out, this archival confusion, and then quietly backtracked on that bit of theater. Reliance on that document trove is not helpful. When you bear in mind that Mr. Obama has the SSAN of a dead man who lived in Connecticut one's confidence factor in what Mr. O. lays down goes down. Mine anyway.

I recommend Jack Cashill's work on this and any other aspect of the eligibility question, although I suspect you are well read in this.

The place of Obama's birth is moot if the correct definition of NBC is used. I'm in enough discomfort to not to want to go into detail on the worth of my secondary opinions. Leo Donofrio submitted an Amicus Brief that is probably reliable and possibly of interest to you. His reasons for finding that NBC clause does not mean just anyone born here in the U.S. I find persuasive. See here.

I am surprised that Atty. Gen. Meese came down as you indicated on NBC. Big double take on this end.

I'll reserve judgment on Wong Kim. Determining the ratio decidendi of a case is a precise and exacting exercise and I thus will not casually accede to your interpretation of the case.

The whole area is a very interesting one and only a few people strike me as having invested the time to say anything authoritative on the issue. I haven't, of course, and do not mean to insinuate any inadequacy in your approach.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "The evidence of the forgery of the certificate posted on the WH website..."

Answer. It is not forged.

It makes no little sense for Obama’s BC to be forged if (1) Obama was really born in Hawaii (and they idea that he was born anywhere else is pretty nutty given the high expense and risk of such a trip late in pregnancy at the time); and (2) the facts on Obama’s published BC are exactly the same, repeat EXACTLY the same, which is what the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said, as the facts on the BC in their files, and those facts include “African” and Kapiolani Hospital.

One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–---the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

And birther sites have not shown you these real experts:

Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

John Woodman, independent computer professional, said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

smrstrauss said...

Re: " I think it was the Hawaii governor himself who claimed he was going to get this all sorted out...'

Yes, he was attempting to find some document that he could release IN ADDITION TO THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and he could not find one. But the BC is sufficient, and it does in fact exist, as the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed, and they have also said that they send both the short form BC (which is the official BC) and the long form BC to Obama, and that the facts on the BCs that Obama has published are EXACTLY the same, that they MATCH, the facts on the document in their files.

Some things that show that Obama was born in Hawaii:

1. Obama's two official birth certificates, with the state seals on them. (The official physical copy of the long-form birth certificate was handed around in the White House press room, and one reporter said that she had felt the seal and took a photo of the document. http://turningthescale.net​/?p=541)

2. The confirmation of the facts on the two birth certificates (short form and long form)----that Obama was born in Hawaii---by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor, who is a friend of Sarah Palin’s) and several Democrats, and by the public Index Data file. The acceptance of the written confirmation of the facts on Obama’s birth certificate by the conservative secretary of state of Arizona.

3. The notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 that were sent to the papers “Health Bureau Statistics” section by the DOH of Hawaii----and only the DOH could send those notices. (Also, the claim that the DOH could have been influenced by lying relatives turns out to be false because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.)

4. The absence of a US travel document for Obama in 1961. Nor has there been an application for such a travel document found. (A child born in a foreign country would, of course, require either to be on his mother’s US passport or to receive a US visa on a foreign passport. Either of which would have had to have been done IN a US consulate in that foreign country, and the application for that document would still exist, and would have been found by the Bush Administration during the eight years in which it was in charge of the US State Department, but they didn’t.)

5. The teacher, who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 and writing home about it (about the birth to a woman named Stanley to her father, also named Stanley).

6. Obama's Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview (Hartford Courant) that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

7. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and it was rare for women to travel late in pregnancy in those days. WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father remained in Hawaii throughout 1961, which would have meant that she would have had to have made that long, expensive and risky trip without him---and that is hardly likely at all. In fact, it is irrational to believe that Obama’s relatives were rich enough (his grandfather was a furniture salesman and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank in 1961) or stupid enough to send Obama’s mother on a long, expensive and risky (the incidence of stillbirth was high in those days) trip to a foreign country when she was late in pregnancy------when there were perfectly fine hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "When you bear in mind that Mr. Obama has the SSAN of a dead man who lived in Connecticut..."

Birther sites have not told you that MILLIONS of Americans have errors in their SS numbers and multiple SS numbers, caused mainly by data entry errors.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have

http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Leo Donofrio submitted an Amicus Brief that is probably reliable and possibly of interest to you. His reasons for finding that NBC clause does not mean just anyone born here in the U.S. I find persuasive."

You are entitled to your opinion. However, you should recognize that neither your opinion nor Leo's is the law. Leo is speculating about the law---but he is wrong. Meese is right, as are senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson, and all four of them say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth. And, that is indeed what the Wong Kim Ark ruling said, and in fact NINE state and one federal court have all ruled that the key ruling on the matter was the Wong Kim Ark case, and that it ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

Here are some of them:

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “ Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:



Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

For those who would like to do some research on the subject, here are some links:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lincoln-republican/2012/12/10/is-marco-rubio-a-natural-born-citizen/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf



smrstrauss said...

I apologize for quoting Allen v. Obama twice. I did not notice that I had put it down twice.

The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

Moreover, you can ask yourself why, if two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born US Citizen why not one single member of the 538 members of the US Electoral College said anything about it either in 2008 or in 2012. Surely if it were at all likely that the citizenship of a parent had anything to do with the eligibility of the president one or more electors would have switched their votes from Obama to McCain or from Obama to Romney (or simply not voted) out of that belief.

Turns out that not one single elector and not one single member of Congress (since they confirmed Obama's election unanimously twice) and not one single court believes that the citizenship of parents has anything to do with the Natural Bron Citizen status of a US citizen who was born on US soil.

js said...

That ole mind is confused by double talk, eh?

1- Children are born with their parents allegiance. They are naturally loyal to the country of their parents. This is a simple thing we all can agree upon. It is the natural heritage, a hereditary right, and it is a natural descent of citizenship. No nation denies the children born within its own borders or traveling in foreign lands citizenship. So it is by natural descent.

2- Children born in foreign lands to parents that are aliens to that land are still citizens of the parents country. This also is a simple thing, there should be no dispute about this. It is the same natural heritage, the hereditary right, of all children to that natural descent of citizenship. To deny this would be like saying the children of illegal immigrants in the USA would have no right to the Mexican citizenship of their parents. That in itself would be a grievous insult to the national sovereignty of Mexico itself. The Children of Citizens of Mexico, born in the United States, do not lose their natural right to Mexican citizenship.

3- Compounding 2, above, is that foreign nation which grants the child of foreign nationals born within its borders, citizenship. So, when the natural parents and the child return to their homeland, the child literally holds 2 citizenships. One being the natural citizenship passed to the child by natural law, and the second being, the naturalization of the child to a foreign citizenship which exists only by latchet of man made law. Should the parents remain in the foreign nation, those conditions still exist, whether the parents naturalize as citizens or not, the condition of the child at birth, does not change.





The topic that this post addresses is the establishment of natural born citizenship (NBC) as a qualification, to become the President of the United States (POTUS) as the term was understood by our founding fathers, at the time that they established our Constitution. The term natural born citizen itself is not explained in the Constitution. This is agreed to by all, and that its definition is what divides so many of us.

js said...

part II



The intent of the founding Fathers is what we need to figure out. Why did they make NBC a requirement to become the POTUS. In order for us to establish the reason, we need to study the cause. The point cant be argued that the meaning of NBC could not contradict that reason, so if we establish the reason, documented in the writing of the founding Fathers, then we can logically rule out anything that contradicts that meaning to establish a high probability of their intent.

That meaning cannot contradict anything we know that the Constitutional Convention was disputing or debating when we first see the term used. The Founding fathers intent was to insure that the security of our nation would not devolve to anyone with loyalties other than to the USA. This point is well established in historical documents. At the time these issues were at hand, is when we find the term "Natural Born Citizenship" inserted into the Constitutional Conventions draft copies, replacing the use of "citizen" as a qualification to become POTUS. The phrase made it all the way through, without challenge and became a requirement for any person to become POTUS. So it is safe to assume that the founding Fathers understood the term NBC as they used it, to preclude the qualification of any person who was born with any loyalty to any nation, other than the United States of America.

Based on this intent, the founding Fathers established that, at birth, if the child holds loyalties to any foreign nation at birth then that person is not qualified to become POTUS. It doesn't matter if later on in life that the Childs loyalty to the USA is an unbreakable bond and the child is a hero and saves the lives of a thousand of his countrymen. The time, at the birth, and the condition, loyal to no nation other than to the USA, is all that we need to know. This definition is in full agreement with the writings of the founding Fathers, as well as, with the Law of Nations, to which they were familiar with, as well as the fact that it does not contradict natural law, which is the natural descent of citizenship of children following the citizenship of their parents. Dual citizenship is no different than if the child had no US citizenship at all. When it comes to qualification to become POTUS, as understood by the Founding Fathers, we must reject any child born with any loyalty to any foreign nation, and to be a dual citizen at birth is to have an allegiance to a foreign nation.

Case closed.

The SCOTUS cannot contradict the Constitution, and when all the laws come together, there are none that can stand up as law if they do. No person, who was born with a loyalty/allegiance to any nation other than to the United States to include any dual citizenship condition “at the time of their birth”, is qualified to become POTUS.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "1- Children are born with their parents allegiance. "

Answer: Where did you get that nutty idea?

In the United States of America if you are born on US soil you legally have sole allegiance to the United States of America (unless your parents are foreign diplomats).


In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

(Notice that while Madison mentioned two possible ways that a person could have allegiance, he said that only ONE of them, the place of birth, applied in the USA.)

And that BTW is still the law. A person born on US soil who fights against the USA can be charged and convicted of treason regardless of the citizenship of his parents when he was born.

Re: " This is a simple thing we all can agree upon."

Answer: We do not agree.

Re: "2- Children born in foreign lands to parents that are aliens to that land are still citizens of the parents country. "

Answer: That depends on the laws of the various countries. The ONLY law that applies in the United States of America is US law, and under US law every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US Citizen regardless of the citizenship of the parents, and dual nationality has absolutely no effect.

(We have already had several presidents who were dual citizens either when they were president [James Madison] or at birth [Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower].) More importantly, the meaning of Natural Born in the common law, from which the term comes, does not exclude persons from being Natural Born due to dual nationality.


Re: "To deny this would be like saying the children of illegal immigrants in the USA would have no right to the Mexican citizenship of their parents. "

Answer: If they were born on US soil, they have the right to both citizenships, dual nationality. But that does not affect their being Natural Born US Citizens, nor does it affect the legal requirement that they have absolute and total allegiance to the USA.

More reading on the subject:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Based on this intent, the founding Fathers established that, at birth, if the child holds loyalties to any foreign nation at birth then that person is not qualified to become POTUS."

IF they really had that as their intent, they would have said so. There is nothing about dual citizenship affecting Natural Born Citizen status in any of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention.

Instead, they used the legal term Natural Born, which they were familiar with as lawyers (they were mainly lawyers and justices), and the legal term Natural Born INCLUDES dual citizens.

smrstrauss said...

Here is the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case (which btw was after Minor v. Happersett) that says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child in the USA with the exception of children born to foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

As you can see, it says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

That is the current legal definition. And, as I said, ten appeals courts have all ruled on the issue and ever single one of them agreed that the US Supreme Court ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats), and not one single one of them ruled that two citizen parents are required or that dual citizenship affects Natural Born Citizen status.

And NOT one single member of the US Electoral College changed her or his vote from Obama to McCain in 2008 or from Obama to Mitt Romney in 2012. Obama won 356 Electoral votes in 2008 and he received the votes of 356 Electors. Obama won 332 Electoral votes in 2012, and he received the votes of 332 Electors. Not one of the total of nearly 690 electors thought that dual citizenship affected Obama's Natural Born Citizen status, and not a single member of Congress did either---they confirmed Obama's election in the 2008 and 2012 elections UNANIMOUSLY.