Re: "there is a significant reason why the founders did not call us "Subjects". You should study it."<quoted text>
It doesn't say anything about "Natural Born Citizen" It sure does say a lot about "Subjects" though- there is a big difference, and there is a significant reason why the founders did not call us "Subjects". You should study it.
BTW, would not his father have fallen under British rule? Which at the time claimed Obama as a "SUBJECT"- or do you not like interjecting british law into our Constitution anymore?
I agree with you that we are citizens, not subjects.
But the issue is whether the requirements for a Natural Born Citizen are different from the requirements for a Natural Born Subject. IF they were different, the writers of the US Constitution would tell us about the difference--but they didn't. Yes, subjects and citizens are different, but there is no evidence that the Natural Born requirements for citizens are different from the Natural Born requirements for subjects.
It would have been easy for the writers in an article or in a letter to say: "George, do you realize that we are citizens now, and therefore we should change the Natural Born requirement from birth in the country to parents." But, you know, there is no such letter.
Re: "BTW, would not his father have fallen under British rule? Which at the time claimed Obama as a "SUBJECT"
Answer. Yes that is true. But we have already had a discussion of dual citizenship. We have already had several US presidents who were either dual citizens at birth (Wilson, Eisenhower) or when they were president (Jefferson, Madison). Like Wilson, Obama was a dual citizen of the USA and Britain at birth, and that fact does not affect NBC status.