But we don't require citizen at birth under the Constitution. We require natural-born citizen.
To me, it's rather peculiar, how the term natural-born citizen supposedly applies to births under jus sanguinis through the parents on the one hand, and also under jus soli through the soil, on the other.
You've insisted that "natural" is language that does not apply to parents, upthread. But then, it does?
Such an odd, inelegant way of parsing the language. It's rather obvious to me, given that there is no distinction made regarding natural-born citizens, that the term does not mean one thing here, and another thing there. The evident meaning of other, Constitutional terms of art is consistent, and consistently applied.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, some of the several States determined birthright citizenship via jus soli, and some of the several States determined birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis. Given that Presidential elections actually were and are decided by electoral votes, from each State, and that the Office of President, being the only Office voted upon by all of the several States, had to qualify across varying jurisdictions, how do you suppose a given canidate met the natural-born citizen eligibility requirement in those of the several States that determined birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis, if the candidate himself did not meet that standard?
There you have the practical reasoning behind the acceptance of the definition of the term, as found in The Law Of Nations. A Constitutional Republic is not a monarchy. A Constitutional Republic often consists of various States in confederacy, with varying means of determining citizenship.
And, a Constitutional Republic such as the nascent United States of America, certainly was not going to acknowledge legal concepts of citizenship under the law in England, that would place them into perpetual allegiance to the very monarchy that they had just fought a war to separate themselves from.
You and I have discussed England's competing claims of citizenship upon the original U.S. citizens, and that the War Of 1812 was fought largely due to England sitting off our shores, seizing and conscripting U.S. citizens, claiming them under perpetual allegiance as natural-born subjects of England.
It is just incredible to me, that you or anyone else would attempt to misconstrue our Founders' intent, to allow a British citizen into the Office of President.
I defy you to find a single instance in US case law or in the writings of the founders where the two terms aren't used synonymously.
You've insisted that "natural" is language that does not apply to parents, upthread. But then, it does?
No, it doesn't. "Natural" simply refers to citizenship status by virtue of birth.
Such an odd, inelegant way of parsing the language. It's rather obvious to me, given that there is no distinction made regarding natural-born citizens, that the term does not mean one thing here, and another thing there.
No, it means one thing, and one thing only: citizen at birth. There is nothing odd or "inelegant" about that. It's about as straightforward as you can get.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, some of the several States determined birthright citizenship via jus soli, and some of the several States determined birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis.
Before the passage of the 14th amendment, the states were allowed to decide who did or did not become a citizen at birth. Whoever was deemed by a state to be a citizen at birth, was a natural born citizen under the Federal constitution. That changed with the passage of the 14th amendment; now everyone born in the US, under US jurisdiction is natural born.
This is not complicated, and there's no controversy about anywhere except among birthers.