The Constitution is replete with undefined words, and if you don’t know that you ought to, so tossing the canard to me “Where in the Constitution is it” is done in bad faith, without question. I might as well ask you where in the Constitution is the definition of “attainder,” “impost,” or a host of other terms that were well understood by the framers.
There is enough support in the form of contemporary documentation regarding the phrase “natural-born” so that what the Framers meant by that usage, which appears only with respect to the qualifications of the President, can’t really be in dispute.
That you seem to want to dispute it means either that you are not educated on the subject, or that you want to read into a Constitution a meaning that the Framers did not intend. If that is the case, then you believe you are in a position superior to the Constitution. Maybe you ought to be on the Court - that’s a place you could really put that philosophy into practice.
And those who find meanings to those words not found or implied in the Constitution are the ones who look upon it as a living document. Attainder is defined by law. Impost is defined by law. If not in the Constitution itself, please tell me where law defines the three-plus classes of citizenship?
There is enough support in the form of contemporary documentation regarding the phrase “natural-born” so that what the Framers meant by that usage, which appears only with respect to the qualifications of the President, can’t really be in dispute.
But again I will direct you back to the Constitution itself which identifies only two classes of citizenship. But if you insist on 'contemporary documentation' then which do you use? Do you use English Common Law which defines natural born citizen one way? Or do you go with Vattel, who defined it in a different way? That's the problem, you have multiple definitions so you have to go back to the Constitution itself, or federal law in effect at the time. According to federal law, he's natural born.
That you seem to want to dispute it means either that you are not educated on the subject, or that you want to read into a Constitution a meaning that the Framers did not intend.
What you actually mean by that statement is that I'm not slavishly devoted to your position and that I don't unquestionably accept your interpretation then I'm guilty and in that I make no apologies. I would instead suggest that it is you who isn't very well versed in the law, in the Supreme Court decisions which have ruled on the issue, and in the Constitution itself.
If that is the case, then you believe you are in a position superior to the Constitution.
You say that yet you cannot point to what clause of the Constitution supports your claim. Very disappointing.