I wish people would stop repeating that pointless mantra. The constitution only defines a single term, and that term is "Treason." As Madison said:
If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
The US Constitution did not create citizenship. Let me repeat that. The US Constitution *DID NOT* create citizenship. Citizenship was created in 1776 by the "Declaration of Independence", and I have been doing my best to try to get through to people from whence they got this word "Citizen", and what that word meant at that time.
On that point everyone agrees except those with closed minds.
You have it backwards. It is the "closed minds" who agree on this point.
The legal definition of NBC HAS changed without amendment to the Constitution since the 1700’s.
No it hasn't. People assert that it has, but it hadn't changed by the time Minor V Happersett rolled along in 1875.
Once again, plain fact that most everyone can observe, with said exception. The current,working definition is that if either mother OR father meets the definition of US citizen then the child is born a US citizen no matter where the birth occurs.
For a US citizen Father this was true since 1790. For a US citizen Mother, this was only true since 1922. In both cases it is a "naturalization" statute that makes the child into a citizen.
I am one of those that believe that the citizenship rule should be changed so that the latter of those two situations does NOT automatically produce a citizen at birth unless either parent is a US citizen. Is it your opinion that it would require an amendment to the Constitution to make that change? I don’t.
No. "Anchor babies" were never covered by the 14th amendment. The Author of the 14th amendment makes this very clear in his speeches to Congress during this era.
Anchor Babies should not ever be considered as citizens, but because the Liberal courts have regarded them that way, people have simply been going along with an incorrect interpretation of the 14th amendment.
“Me: The legal definition of NBC HAS changed without amendment to the Constitution since the 1700’s.
You: No it hasn’t. People assert that it has, but it hadn’t changed by the time Minor V Happersett rolled along in 1875.
Once again, plain fact that most everyone can observe, with said exception. The current,working definition is that if either mother OR father meets the definition of US citizen then the child is born a US citizen no matter where the birth occurs.
For a US citizen Father this was true since 1790. For a US citizen Mother, this was only true since 1922. In both cases it is a “naturalization” statute that makes the child into a citizen.”
Please re-read that a couple of times. You assert that the legal definition of NBC hasn’t changed since the Constitution, then state how it HAS changed in 1922, and done without Constitutional amendment. That only makes sense if you hang your hat on the 3 types of citizen hook, Naturalized, Naturalized at birth and NBC.
There are only TWO legal types of citizenship recognized by law today. Naturalized and NBC. Once again, you can have your opinion but that is the current working law. If you disagree get a SC ruling or get a law passed. As of now you have neither.