Any debate - whether over understanding or definition - will have to address the purpose of including the class of ordinary "citizen" in the sentence that introduces NBC.
The language used provides those born prior to the date of Adoption, "citizens", could serve as president. However, those born on or after the date of Adoption were required to be NBC.
What possibly could warrant use of the two classes, or otherwise separate the two classes, other than parents who would be citizens as of the date of Adoption?
I predict that any court that faces the issue squarely will incorporate such reasoning in its opinion.
Meanwhile, those who would remake our nation will continue to shame any who insist on NBC just as they shame critics of the recent presidential election.
?????
No one in the founding generation was born a citizen of the US, so citizen birth couldn't be required of that generation, but could be of later generations. No need to involve parents in tht.
Agreed. The point was our Founders wanted people who would have been "Americanized" and loyal or taught loyalty from the start.
Remember, many early Americans spent time abroad and had children while they were abroad. But AFAIK, those children born abroad to American citizens were considered NBC.
Upon ratification, there were citizens who were not born in America and/or were not born to American citizens abroad.
So, again, if Ramaswamy was born on U.S. soil and his parents were here legally, he may very well be considered an NBC.
Not true with fraudsters like Obama, however, who hid his birth certificate and lied through his teeth about it.