“The 1790 law has changed a number of times and doesn’t resemble the original when Obama or McCann was born.”
“WOSG’s point wasn’t the current validity of the 1790 law, it was that the 1790 law provided a fairly accurate snapshot of the Founder’s intent.”
Yes, correct, but my broader point was arguing against the (false IMHO) claim that Congress couldn’t regulate the meaning of the term ‘natural-born’. Congress can and has done that throughout our history.
While the law has changed in details, the basic parameters are: You are a natural-born citizen if you are born in the U.S. or if your parents (used to both both, or father, now either parent) are U.S. citizens.
Raycpa, thanks for citing the relevant laws from 1934, 1952, etc.
Problem is that as a matter of Constitutional Law, that isn't correct. In places where that comes up, the Court says well if you permit Congress to do that, it could effectively amend the constitution without complying with the Amendment process and we can't have that.
The lawyers who regularly argue cases to the Supreme Court are of the view that historical efforts by Congress to tell the court how the case comes out have received negative treatment at the hands of the Court.