No it is not a joke. Do you think the Constitution of the United States is a joke?
I have asked a simple question, and have yet to get an answer to it.
Apparently, by some of the replies on here, some claim to know the answer, yet decline to give proof or legal documentation.
It was stated that it has been perused endlessly on the internet, yet no one has given proof.
It was stated that his parents were US citizens, which was not true, because his father was not a citizen of the US at the time of his birth. And again no proof , link or documentation.
Is everyone in denial or just stating hearsay from the media and what they hear from friends.
Apparently you all know the answer, yet fail to back up your claims with proof.
The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, 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."
John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1866 states “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.”
Throughout the Constitution there is references to citizens and naturalized citizens, but only once is the term Natural Born Citizen mention, and that is for the requirement to hold office of the President. With no mention of Natural Born Citizen in the 14th, how can one reason that the requirement of Natural Born Citizen has changed with the 14th Amendment? There is no logic that the requirement would have changed when it was not even mentioned.
We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”. It does not use the words “natural born citizen”. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US. Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals. The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 “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.
Note that the founding fathers carefully used the words a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, and special note to at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Without this, they would not have been eligible to be President of the US. Anyone becoming a citizen after the adoption of the Constitution, would have had to be a Natural Born Citizen.
The best thing for the inside of a man is the outside of a horse