It seems to me what the US Code has done is to interpret itself into the Constitution, in essence, subverting it. Hence, I stand by my iterpretation. Though no one in authority sees it my way anyway as I regard Jane Fonda, Nancy Pelosi, Rick Warren and many others guilty of Treason by the Constitution.
But I do appreciate, and respect your response, and even had to think about it overnight before replying that I don’t agree.
And again: I can’t believe I’m defending this bastard. But I’ve got to call them as I see them.
Thanks.
I would not disagree. However that's why definitions or criteria for "citizen" or "citizen at birth" that are contained in the US Code are essentially irrelevant to the Constitutional meaning of "Natural Born Citizen".
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there were two basic definitions of "natural born Subject/Citizen". One required birth to at least a citizen father, the other only birth on the territory of the nation. The British used both. The best place to look might be the laws and/or constitutions of the states which existed *before* the Constitution was ratified.
But it would be nice if a court of law would at least consider the matter on it's merits.
I do think that it is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, that a person be a citizen at birth in order to be a "natural born citizen".
BTW, the Constitution itself defines Treason as follows:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
I think only Jane Fonda fits the definition. (via the second criteria, observing that a country need not be at war, formally or not, to have enemies.)