Not this crap again. There is no “constitutional definition” of a natural born citizen. There are two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized. There has never been a third kind, born a citizen but not “natural born”. There is no legal precedent of a third category and no court is going to create one now.
Natural born Citizen is one who is born to two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil...Anyone that doesn’t meet that standard is a naturalized citizen ineligible for the office of President of the United States or VPOTUS.
If there’s a doubt...you aint.
NEXT
it has already started.
“There is no “constitutional definition” of a natural born citizen.”
Number one, the Constitution defines no terms whatsoever; it merely uses the legal language of that day, which is still the language of today.
Second, the Naturalization Act of 1790 directly defines natural born as being born of citizen parents.
By the way, I was taught in high school and by college professors that natural born meant being born of citizen parents.
Statutory law can do just about anything. Not saying there is a third kind of citizenship, but a statute can assert any person is a citizen at birth.
See Rogers. v. Bellei. If the sole source of citizenship is statutory, even if citizenship attaches at birth, that person is naturalized without any ceremony.
I know you won't accept the logical reasoning, but I've said before that the constitutional definition is in the Preamble.
A natural born citizen is "ourselves and our Posterity" for whom "We the People... ordained and established this Constitution... in Order to form a more perfect Union."
"Ourselves," in the context of the Preamble, would be the randfathered citizens of the United States at the forming. "Our Posterity" would be the citizen children of citizen parents (We the People). Naturalized citizens become We the People, and then the Posterity of We the People are its natural born citizens.
We the People gave ourselves the power to directly elect our representatives to the House of Representatives in the United States Congress. If you cannot vote for a Representative, then you are NOT We the People. It is clear that Kamala Harris' parents could not vote for the House of Representatives, therefore they were not "We the People." This means that Kamala was not the "Posterity" of "We the People."
The "natural born citizen" clause was meant to secure the presidency. The presidency has the tighter requirement of "natural born citizen" in contrast to Congress which only required "citizen." In other words, "citizen" equaled "We the People," while "natural born citizen" equaled "Posterity of We the People." Otherwise, why use the phrase "natural born" at all in the Constitution? The Framers went through many alterations of the Constitution before settling on this language, so the distinction must have had a purpose. Can you offer one of your own, if mine is flawed?
The people of any nation have the right to choose who can join their nation. If they do not have the right to control their own citizenry, then they are at risk of invasion from outsiders.
There are two ways to join the nation: be the Posterity of its citizens, or become naturalized by laws passed by the representatives of the citizenry in Congress.
People who are not citizens of this country who birth children in this country take away the right of the citizens of this country to control who may become it's citizens. It is a de facto invasion from within by foreigners to take over the country without the consent of its native citizens.
-PJ