The 14th Amendment has ZERO to do with it, fwiw. It did not re-invent the meaning of natural born in the Article II requirements. I strongly doubt that if a freed black slave’s child ran for President that they would be considered natural born. May sound harsh, but the children of slaves would bear too great an animus to the nation which enslaved their parents. Grandchild would be fine. In any case, it’s a speculative what-if, for the case did not present itself in the era of such children.
“May sound harsh, but the children of slaves would bear too great an animus to the nation which enslaved their parents.”
What you reason to be sufficient grounds for assumed loyalty is not the same as what’s in the law. I’m sick of these tired arguments. “Obviously,” you might say, “anchor babies and the children of legal aliens alike can’t be relied upon to be loyal.” And just as obviously, I guess, “Grandchild[ren] would be fine.” I’m glad it’s so easy for you to predict who would and would not be loyal, but what on earth does that have to do with the law? Nothing.
The birthers are out peddling their mis-representations of the Constitution again... sigh.
“Natural-born citizen” means citizen from time of birth.
Jindhal is that.
“The 14th Amendment has ZERO to do with it, fwiw.”
Wrong. 14th makes it clear that if you are born in the US, you are a citizen from birth. It ended second-class citizenship and de facto slavery. There is NO distinction between ANYONE born in the US, we are all EQUAL citizens.
The only ones excluded by Article II are naturalized citizens.
Is Jindal a naturalized citizen? NO. Citizen from birth, ergo eligible.
Your attempt to create a distinction is ANTI-14th-amendment, antithetical to the point of the amendment.
The Constitution trumps your opinion.
“I strongly doubt that if a freed black slave’s child ran for President that they would be considered natural born. May sound harsh,”
Not just harsh, but totally wrong.They would be eligible - as would ANYONE who was a citizen from birth.