Things that are “natural” — “being in accordance with or determined by nature” — require no definition.
They just are.
If a person’s citizenship status has to be defined by an amendment, a law, or a statute, they are not “natural” born. They are “statutory” citizens — for example, Obama:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/FourCases.htm#Obama
Persons, eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS), NEVER have first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.
ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with natural born citizens who have only American ties.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Cheers . . .
You said “Things that are “natural” — “being in accordance with or determined by nature” — require no definition.
They just are.
If a person’s citizenship status has to be defined by an amendment, a law, or a statute, they are not “natural” born. They are “statutory” citizens — for example”
Would you say that freedom of speech, religion or the right to bear arms are natural? If so, why are they codified in amendment? Your argument does not up if applied to the Bill of Rights. If those rights are natural, they just are and never needed to be spelled out, yet the founding fathers felt that they were important enough to explicitly specify.
ALL of our citizenships, even the founding fathers citizenships, were codified into law of some sort. Your argument makes no sense.