Do you know that person with Kenyan or Cuban father is constitutionally ineligible to serve as POTUS?

No, I don't. And neither do you. I am aware that such an argument could be made on originalist grounds in that it may have been what the "Founding Fathers" intended, but since they did not in fact specify the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution at the time, "natural born citizen" would be up the courts to decide. It does not "remain valid" because it has not been disputed in the Supreme Court. That would only make its validity indeterminate and therefore by the basic presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty and get to do what they want unless there's a specific law against it, people born as citizens with foreign fathers get to run for and win elections if they can get the votes. There have in fact been lawsuits challenging Obama's citizenship on that ground such as the appeal of Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to the Supreme Court and Donofrio v. Wells, but the Supreme Court either declined to hear them, or dismissed them without comment.

The fact is, the courts are not taking your argument seriously. They are operating under the assumption that if you are not a naturalized citizen, then you are a natural-born citizen. At some point in the hypothetical future some different court, perhaps influenced by strong anti-immigrant sentiment might in fact decide to set a definition for "natural-born" that matches Vattel. At which point yes, it would become unconstitutional. Right now all you can validly say is that based on the original intent of the Founding Fathers, it _should be_ unconstitutional.

If that were even possibly true there would have been a big lawsuit to disqualify Obama when he first ran for president. It doesn't seem necessary in Ted Cruz's case because he's nowhere near the top of the list, but if it was a vulnerability you can bet the other Republicans would do it. Not to mention John McCain.

If Obama's father being Kenyan would disqualify him, all those lawsuits would have been about his father being Kenyan (which was TRUE) rather than about him being born outside the US (which wasn't true). Why would they repeat a lie so vigorously, over and over for years, when there was a TRUTH that could disqualify Obama?

Please refer to the actual US Constitution>

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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."

The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *

Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

Not true. Obama was born in the US. It wouldn't matter if both of his parents were born in Kenya. He would still have been eligible to be president.

Ted Cruz was born to an American mother who had lived at least 10 years in the US. According to the US code, he too is eligible, even though he was born in Canada. The citizenship of his father is irrelevant.

Actually the Constitution has never clearly defined what a natural born American is but it is generally held that if you acquired citizenship at birth then you can be President.

If you became a citizen after birth, through naturalization then you can not be President.

Except that isn't in the US constitution. Your link is to a textbook, not the US constitution.

edit****

Except, Lenny, that the US was a nation comprised nearly entirely of recent European immigrants. Therefore, they were more inclined to include the native-born children of immigrants, since that's what most of THEM were! After all, even George Washington's parents were born British Citizens! So your argument is invalid.

lol sorry--a natural born citizen has been defined for half a century now as someone with ONE parent that is an American Citizen. Sorry--try again

Wow did not know that. Maybe you should tell someone in power and they can tell President Obama. He will surly resign if he knew this fact.

The Harvard Law Review disagrees with you.

Is it 2009 again?