“If citizens at birth is the same as ‘natural born.’ That seems possible. Maybe a constitutional scholar can help.”
The government has been playing fast and loose with the terms “citizen”, “citizen at birth”, citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen” for a long, long time.
They have NEVER been consistent in the language of the laws they have written.
For example:
14th Amendment - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...”
It just says that a person born in the United States is a “citizen”, not “natural born”, as of the date of enactment. If you were to take this literally, then every POTUS since Teddy Roosevelt would NOT have been eligible.
This NEEDS to be addressed by SCOTUS - they NEED to define the terms succinctly.
Also, in this case, they MUST clarify the issue of standing.
Granted, most citizens WOULD NOT have “traditional standing” at law to bring this case forward.
However, since the MOST fundamental document of law is involved AND there are provisions in the Constitution such as:
1st Amendment (redress of grievances)
9th Amendment (citizens hold rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution)
10th Amendment (powers NOT delegated to the United States, or otherwise prohibited, are reserved to the States or the people).
Might not the people have “special standing” when a serious constitutional issue is involved?
SCOTUS NEEDS to resolve this too.
After all, the first three words are “We, The People ...”.
The Constitution may have been signed by forty men - but they signed for us all ...