“Finally, we have it, the SC(not what I and the framers intended) has amended the Constitution without the benefit of an amendment.”
Uh, I never said it was SCOTUS who changed the original intention of the natural born clause. It is my understanding that the 14th amendment did so, in perfect accordance with the rule of law.
Now, you may argue SCOTUS bastardized the meaning behind the 14th with Wong Kim Ark et. al. There some credence to that charge, I guess, because there’s confusion over what “under the jurisdiction thereof” means. But if I’m right in interpreting natural born to mean nothing more than born a citizen, than this is where the real argument is: at the footstep of the 14th amendment. Not who tyhe framers had in mind when they demanded only born citizens be allowed to be president.
Well, lets see, the 14th did not address the natural born clause for VP and Pres per se, it was the SC who said it addressed it (reading the minds of the drafters of the 14th). So, if the 14th had no wording repealing the natural born clause to admit any and every kind of citizen born on american soil, then the SC did amend the constitution by implying that the 14th repealed the intention of the natural born clause. The ARK decision (made by the SC) does in fact obliterate the meaning of the natural born clause if your interpretation of the decision is correct. I think the decision in ARK is not clear but that is a fight for another day. If the court, by shelving every case regarding the natural born clause, it does in fact lead one to believe that in ARK they did alter the Constitution by stretching the meaning of the 14th.