Replies

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.

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Now, you mat think I'm old-fashioned & out of date, but I believe the Constitution must be upheld.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.

Your 2023 "old-fashioned common sense" is not the deciding factor in properly applying the Constitution in an ambiguous clause. Good-faith effort to find original 1788 understanding satisfies federal "pursuant" in Supreme Law of the Land clause (US Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2).

In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 [found that] {W]hen the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.

It appears the Supreme Court in Elg (1939) agrees.

What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered a natural born citizen (NBC) was. Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended.

The Supreme Court decisions based soundly on the good-faith finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC. Thus, Vivek should be considered an NBC.