As I explained, quoting Chief Justice Morrison Waite, the Constitution has no definitions. The terms used in the Constitution come from our “common-law” and language familiar to our framers. Here is framer, founder, and Chief Justice John Marshall, explaining the common-law and citing his source in The Venus, 12 US 253:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The Obots will argue over “indigense, a term from the orginal French edition of Vattel, but Waite removed any doubt when he affirmed the definition of “native” in his Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1894) decision:
“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.”
Whether or not you are an Obot, you are using their sophistry to perpetrate confusion. I could provide thirty other citations, including the direct repetition of the Waite definition above as Justice Gray clarified who were natural born citizen in Wong Kim Ark. Hint; Wong Kim was born on our soil, and made a naturalized citizen.
Let's be clear that you explained nothing in the comment I referred to.
I am fully aware of the common law definitions of natural law as well as the subsequent legal decisions. All that said, the Constitution is what it is and that's all you referred to.
Please try to be more precise in future posts.
The last refuge of a kwow-nothing on FR is to call someone a Marxist or an "Obot." The comment I responded to questioned Ann Coulter's fealty to the Constitution.
It was a silly comment as the Constitution leaves open the definition of "natural born citizen." Every comment on here proves my point.
Hint, hint, hint:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Citizen from birth. Hence not "made a naturalized citizen."