“The Constitution should mean what it says all the time not just when it is convenient, or it won’t matter because we have became the enemy we are pledged to defeat.”
The problem is that facts and circumstances change such that fact pattern not possible or not contemplated by the founders, amendments or subsequent case law.
Examples:
1. at the time of Minor v Happersett, wives ONLY had the unitary citizenship of their husband in the US.
2. being a bastard child was had legal consequences for citizenship
3. there was no provision as of MvH regarding how adoption would affect NBC status, especially in infancy.
4. there was no provision as of MvH for in vitro fertilization and NBC status.
5. the intent of the founders, arguably following Vattel, would make McCain NBC as the child of a serving US military man
6. as of MvH the end of automatic citizenship change on marriage hadn’t happened creating instant dual citizen children if the statutes were applied to the sexes in a non-discriminatory manner. Would SCOTUS today regard the context of the MvH where ONLY the male parent passes citizenship to be nullified by women’s current retention of her own citizenship on marriage?
7. now the 9th Circus doesn’t even require marriage but only a biological relationship to a US citizen (sperm donor), apparently no infusion of US culture via personal fatherhood
None of these issues have been considered and resolved by SCOTUS, the only final arbiter. And the facts and circumstances of Barry’s birth are not known.
I cannot personally declare Barry to be or not to be NBC at this time, given the lack of a SCOTUS ruling on all of the above unknown that apply to Barry.
You are full of it. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of anything, unless Congress lets them be. Then you have the pesky problem of the Executive branch choosing to ignore laws they don't like. Lawyers are the problem, not the solution.