[xzins]

My point is not what can be argued from history, my point is what the Congress has established as law for the now. I also aim to point out that the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine who becomes a citizen, how they become a citizen, and what the nature of their citizenship is.

Therefore, a natural citizen NOW is what the law established by Congress says, since the Constitution gives that power to Congress.

In fact, anything taken to court NOW will bow to the law enacted by Congress.

The other is always a fun argument, but it’s a lot like arguing about whether there was a plot by the mafia to kill JFK.

[GBA]

My point is not what can be argued from history, my point is what the Congress has established as law for the now.

Many things are like that today. Abortion, the definition of marriage, the right to and forms of self protection, rights to property, search and seizure, privacy...it's all on the table to be decided all over again. And again...

Fair enough. Too bad that in all of them, we seem to just ignore the lessons of history and the wisdom behind why things are as they have been, especially if it gets in the way of what we want, when we want it.

We must really enjoy pain. Part of the deal living life as prodigal sons, I guess.

[highball]

My point is not what can be argued from history, my point is what the Congress has established as law for the now. I also aim to point out that the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine who becomes a citizen, how they become a citizen, and what the nature of their citizenship is.

Therefore, a natural citizen NOW is what the law established by Congress says, since the Constitution gives that power to Congress.

That's an excellent point.

If we don't like the citizenship criteria, we should change them via Congress. We shouldn't just pretend that the Constitution says something that it doesn't.