There are other general terms in the constitution for which one could cite the Federalists Papers and various correspondence between the founders, but those citations did not establish any precise meaning for: establishment of religion, free exercise thereof, unreasonable searches and seizures, and many more.
And when the SCOTUS does rule on one of those general terms, it rules very narrowly and many more disputes can be and are brought on other narrow applications of the general terms to specific situations.
This part of the thread that still goes on started when I said if an anchor baby born in a US border town grew up, lived his or her entire life in the US, became a US Senator and later filed to run for president, that that person would not be denied the opportunity to run. And no one can point out a SCOTUS ruling that would prevent it. And we can be certain it would be the courts that decided it.
The link I provided in #805 clearly states that someone simply born in the US can run for president. The main point here is, like many other specific questions that arise out of the constitution, this one is not defined and settled law. It has rarely ever come up because the background of most candidates for presidents was well known and easily verifiable.
You did not read my thread.
Sorry to bother you, Vel, but could you set this man straight? He’s saying an “anchor baby” born to not only non-US citizens but even illegals could become presdident.
Will, Velveeta can set you straight on this false claim. She herself was born in the US but her parents did not become citizens until she was five years old. The INS information given to her parents said that she could not become president, but that her brother, born after her parents’ naturalization, could.