no it doesn't - it talks of one facet but doesn't define it all The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes...

He's correct - here it is to read again yourself: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it...

That isn't what the SCOTUS said in Happersatt. They said no one questioned "born here, both parents citizens" while some question "born here, both parents not citizens" and they didn't answer the later (because the case didn't require them to).

This sounds a little like Moynihan's Graffitti/Broken Windows concept, which Guiliani worked from in turning NYC around.

Wrong, Happersett does not say that. It explicitly doesn't answer the born here to non-citizen question. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but...

You are wrong about Happersett. The Supreme Court said no one questioned the status of someone born here to two citizens, and that some questioned the status of those born here but not to two citizens - the court then specifically declined to discuss the later situation (since it didn't matter to the result of the case before them). Happersett does not say Rubio or Jindal are not natural born, it just notes that there was some debate on it at the time (and the court didn't decide it)

She just as to know the minority thing was important...Harvard doesn't hire non-minority faculty who went to Rutgers.

Are you saying that all those Christians who lead the movement against slavery were wrong?

I don't know if their wholly owned subsidiary status in the party will change, but I strongly suspect they will vote overwhelmingly for O this fall.

If you read the article, you'd see that they aren't involved in tabulating