Even if you are correct, the analysis must start with what the framers intended by and how they understood the phrase “natural born citizen.”
They certainly accepted the notion that some things were determined by “nature” and not solely by man-made laws.
Have you not heard of their recognition of “inalienable rights”? How would those rights be “inalienable” if they were made by man and, therefore, subject to the whims of man over time?
“Have you not heard of their recognition of ‘inalienable rights’? How would those rights be ‘inalienable’ if they were made by man and, therefore, subject to the whims of man over time?”
I have heard of that phrase. Of course, it’s from the Declaration of Independence, a document without any current legal significance. There is, as you say, a transience to human affairs. Men live, men die, and new men take their place. Rights that we as Americans hold by virtue of common consent, traditional morality, or the Constitution, are, in fact, alienable.
That is, we are able, through the power of our government, to force people to surrender rights that they previously held dear. We do so pretty much every time our various legislatures meet. We also do so by amending the Constitution from time to time. Is there something terribly unjust about this? Maybe not terribly, but I’d say there is plenty room for injustice.
However, I certainly don’t hear the voice of God in my ear. Neither did the Founders, I suspect. Many of them probably felt they had a God-given right to to their property, including their slaves. They, or rather their descendants, had their property rights alienated by an amendment to the Constitution, didn’t they?
I submit that there is no possible way to run a real-world government without subjecting men to the whims of other men. The best we can do is protect our most cherished rights with all the strength we can muster, meanwhile making it as difficult as possible for any particular interest to gain control of power. And actually, that’s why our Founders were smart enough to install federalism, checks and balances, a written Constitution, and an amendment process. Why would they bother if evryone knew what their rights were and those rights were untouchable?
“Even if you are correct, the analysis must start with what the framers intended by and how they understood the phrase ‘natural born citizen.’”
Well, we can start there, but I doubt we’ll get very far, since the Constitution doesn’t at all define the phrase. I (and the dictionary) have never known “natural born” to mean anything more than “citizen since birth.” If the 14th amendment sets the standard for who is a citizen at birth, then I’m confident in saying those people are elligible for the presidency.
“They certainly accepted the notion that some things were determined by ‘nature’ and not solely by man-made laws.”
There were more lawyers than preachers designing our nation. When it came to defining a person’s legal status, as is the case with citizenship (for what is citizenship but legal status?). I doubt that if the issue had come up back then that they would have put their ears to nature, or whatever it is you do to transcend the realm of men, instead of burying their heads in the law.