Original understanding of constitutional ambiguity comes from a good-faith research into what NBC meant at the time of ratification, not what the understanding in 2024.
Apparently the Ark Court didn’t agree with your assessment of the original understanding of NBC.
If you can cite a part of the opinion that you can specifically challenge as not original understanding with supporting evidence. I’d love to hear it.
Nevertheless, the Ark opinion is the Law of Land according to the U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 4, and, thus, Vivek is legally an NBC.
No, as I have said all along, they did not rule he was a natural born citizen, just that he was a citizen based upon the language used n the amendment. Nowhere dd they mention him being a Natural Born Citizen, just that he was a citizen.
All that proves Jim, is that critical thinking skills have been lost to a dumbed-down society. You claim that Bork contended that they are NBC, yet you have failed to provide me with information that collaborates that claim.
For you, and Robert Bork, are rewarding criminals over those who immigrate to this nation using the legal process.
Granted their children played no part in that criminal act, but they should not be rewarded by virtue of the criminal act their parent(s) used to gain entry into this nation.
We really do not have enough information about the China man's case that the Supreme Court made a ruling on to determine if it was a sound or foolish ruling.
But common sense dictates that at best Nikki Haley & Vivek Ramaswamy hold the same type of citizenship that their parents were eventually granted, naturalized citizenship, not Natural Born citizens.
Now, you mat think I'm old-fashioned & out of date, but I believe the Constitution must be upheld. Want to change the common sense interpretation of the meaning of NBC, then create an amendment and change it as the constitution requires.