“No constitutional provision can be modified by statute absent the Article V amendment process.”
But the constitution is NOT being modified. You keep fantasizing that your definition of “natural born citizen” is in the Constitution.
Because there is nothing in the Constitution defining what is a natural born citizen, it is Congress’ job to define “natural born citizen.”
You can’t modify something THAT IS NOT THERE.
What you can’t wrap your head around is that the Constitution DOES NOT SAY what you want it to say.
“The intent of Article II, Sec i, clause 5 was to protect the office of POTUS from undue and baleful foreign influence, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty”.
Doesn’t matter what the intent was. It only matters what it SAYS.
Do you imagine that the Constitutional Convention all agreed?
You have no idea what ALL of the voting members intended.
The Constitutional convention spent most of their time disagreeing with each other.
“This reflects the patriarchical belief of the framers, derived from the vattelian notion that the citizenship condition of the children followed that of the father.”
No one takes Vattel seriously. Why is it that EVEN THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT does not pay any attention to Vattel?
The Framers followed THE BIBLE and they followed BRITISH precedents — not a private book that isn’t even taken seriously by the French government.
The Framers followed the BIBLICAL example in which the citizenship of the child follows the parents.
Israelites born in Egypt were Israelites, not Egyptians.
So many absurd premises, so little time.
You continually invoke the absurd syllogistic premise that since the constitution isn’t a dictionary, it is impossible to discern the true intention of the framers. So you insert the meaning that YOU want, and voila, it is so. John Jay wrote a letter to the president of the constitutional convention, George Washington importuning him to insert the natural born citizen clause, even as he knew that NONE of the founders were NBC. Unlike many ignorant folks here today, everyone then knew what a NBC was, and yes they did adopt Vattel’s definition. You again are ignoring the inclusion of the 212th paragraph taken in whole from the Law of Nations in the Venus Merchantman decision of 1814 as they defined what a NBC was. Here is a reference from the Virginia Law Review on the significance of the Law of Nations in federal common law decisions http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/729.pdf?article=1478&context=faculty_publications and another on citizenship and the Law of Nations http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html and yet another: https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/vattels-concept-of-natural-born-citizen-in-our-constitution/.
I can cite dozens more, but I know that you would just stubbornly insist that no one has ever paid Vattel any mind, no matter what you see. I place this into this thread for the edification of others who happen on this discussion.
Dozens of US federal appellate court cases have cited Vattel. Do not let your ignorant desire to validate Cruz obscure fact and law.
Natural born citizen has only applied to FORTY FOUR people in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the US. It has constitutional applicability to ONLY ONE purpose, and that is eligibility to assume the office of POTUS. That alone should enable you to divine the true intent of the framers by simply acknowledging the unique singularity of this provision. Any other of the constitutional offices of the federal government may be assumed by being a US citizen of any other type. Your blind adherence to the cult of personality and not to the rule of law does a disservice to the brilliant foresight of the framers, and the protections that they intended Article II, section 1. clause 5 to provide to the office of POTUS and to the American people.