As I said, one can ‘debate’ the issue all they want about what the “Natural Born” term could mean / might mean, but the laws of the country are clear as they stand now, and as they have stood since the “14th Amendment” was enacted.
There is NO ‘third class’ of LEGAL citizenship presently. There are only TWO!
You may not like it, others may not like it. It’s the way it is.
“.........the laws of the country are clear as they stand now, and as they have stood since the “14th Amendment” was enacted.
There is NO ‘third class’ of LEGAL citizenship presently. There are only TWO!”
************************************************************
Perhaps if we take this one baby step at a time we might get somewhere.
Baby Step 1: Does your wording above indicate that, based upon your vast knowledge of the Constitution and the law, you believe that up until the “14th Amendment” there WERE three “classes” of citizenship with “natural born citizen” being one of them?
Please let me know if you think I am getting, as you put it, “emotional” by disagreeing with you.
I see......then according to you the 14th Amendment changed the qualification requirements for obtaining the office of the presidency? It's strange that this information is no where to be found in the Amendment itself.
Precedent in many Supreme Court rulings has indicated that "Any clause in the Constitution is intended to have effect". Chief Justice Marshall (Marbury v. Madison 1803) said, "We cannot interpret the Constitution in a manner that renders a portion of the Constitution to be without effect".
The "Natural Born Clause" was inserted into the document for a precise reason and the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with it. The Constitution does not specify the precise meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" so we must resort to other documents to ascertain the meaning (Minor v Happersett 1874). This ruling occurred after the 14th amendment.....so obviously the Supreme Court is still seeking the precise explanation. Wouldn't this indicate to you that the Court itself considered the "Clause" to still be Constitutional?
Here is the ruling from (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 1898):
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." ... The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
Again......years after the 14th Amendment was ratified......the Court is still dealing with the issue. The 14th Amendment did not have anything to do with the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of Article II Section I of the Constitution.