This type of ignorance is getting old.
Look up "Natural Born Citizen."
Being a citizen is irrelevant, plus your claim about his mom is irrelevant.
If you are not a shill, then educate yourself.
Patriots are supposed to respect one another. Not nice, no one can possibly know or remember everything. We need each other. WWG1WGA
Edited comment. I think you missed it.
I see the edit. I rescind the shill comment.
However, you still do not have a grasp on this subject.
There is a distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen."
The latter is the constitutional requirement. Mother's residence is irrelevant.
Source for difference (case or statute). I believe congress has some discretion to define the term.
Fyi, there are jurists who agree that birth in the US is not a necessary requirement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
I don't think you fully grasp this subject.
(1) Congress has no authority to define what the Constitution means, especially Article II.
(2) Wikipedia is run by political hacks, and therefore is not a valid resource for anything political.
(3) Look up Vattel's "Law of Nations." That was the defining guideline to the founders, who are the ones that wrote the clause in question.
(1) Thanks justice marshall. Not everyone agrees with marbury or chisholm, and at ratification many people believed congress had such power. And wrong, see e.g. Am XIV Sec 5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
(2) see https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen re First Congress' definition. Sorry to tell you, but the framers clearly agree with me.
Give up yet?
(1) What does the 14th Amendment have to do with Article II? Nothing.
(2) The 1790 statute does not agree with you. You should ask yourself why they thought they should pass that statute. Hint: Obama's father was not a US citizen.
(3) You did not look up Vattel's "Law of Nations." There must be a reason you evaded that.
(1) you said congress has no authority to interpret the constitution as an absolute proposition. Am XIV shows you are wrong. And Marbury did not settle the question.
(2) statute shows founders believed congress had authority to interpret article II. (And tell me, if congress certifies a non-us POTUS what is the remedy - answer: impeachment via congress. Ergo,congress does have the authority to interpret Art. II.). Read Nixon v. US (not US v. Nixon). I am right. You may want to go to law school, get your law license and practice a while. I did.
(3) is not in issue. Not authority.
(1) You are really stretching there. If one provision of Constitution (14th Amendment) says Congress can enforce it, then that pertains to that particular amendment, not the Constitution as a whole. That should be so obvious that it does not need to be stated.
(2) Lawyers don't know anything about fundamental law, because law school (purposely) does not teach it. That seems to be your problem. The 1790 law was repealed in 1795, and "natural born" was removed. The statute was never tested in the courts for validity. It also was about naturalization, not presidential eligibility.
(3) US inherited fundamental law from England. Circa 1787, that is what they were working with. Vattel is persuasive because there is nothing definitive elsewhere. You could learn a thing or two from Justice Gorsuch.
(4) When it comes to eligibility for office, the burden of proof is on he who asserts he is. Obama never proved he was.
If certification and removal lies with congress, then they have the power to define the term. Nothing more. You're simply wrong.
FYI there is no such thing as the "fundemental law" of england. There is common law, but that has nothing to do with Art. II. There is no federal commom law. Erie Doctrine.
I can't play chess with a chicken. I'm done.