Replies

So I take it you still cannot provide anything from the Constitution, US Law, or SCOTUS rulings that clearly and unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring two US Citizen parents at birth, correct?

From the perspective of 1787, it would be like requiring a definition of the word "foot."

Anyone who would need one is probably too stupid to understand one. I would suggest you could figure out the meaning by looking how it worked in practice.

100,000 Children born to British Fathers in the United States after July 4,1776 and before September 3, 1783 (Treaty of Paris) were recognized by both the US Government *AND* the British government as NOT American citizens.

Several Millions of blacks born in the United States after July 4, 1776, and before July 9, 1868, *NOT* recognized by the US Government as American Citizens.

Several Million Indians born in the United States after July 4, 1776, and before June 2, 1924, *NOT* recognized by the US Government as American Citizens.

Are you getting the gist of how it worked in practice? Do you know how many violations of that "born on the soil" theory there were? Millions. So many that it demonstrates the theory to be patently absurd.

From the perspective of 1787, it would be like requiring a definition of the word "foot."

Anyone who would need one is probably too stupid to understand one. I would suggest you could figure out the meaning by looking how it worked in practice.

Still doesn't matter.

From the perspective of constitutionality, the meaning of that day, unless codified in the Constitution, US Law, and/or SCOTUS rulings is not the same as a constitutional definition.

In order for your definition, and the definition that you declare was the general meaning, because it was not the universal meaning as proven by the writings of those alive around the same general time, in order to make your definition the constitutional definition, it will require a new amendment to the Constitution, a new US Law, or a ruling by SCOTUS. Until then, it is just your opinion of WHAT SHOULD BE Constitutional. Not what is Constitutional.