“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above means “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”.
ANyone who read the research threads on this topic has a clear understanding of the matter.
Well, I read the research threads, and I understood them all and the various competing arguments. Scotus did not rule on the definition of natural born citizen as it pertains to Article II, Section 1 requirement to be POTUS in Minor vs Happerstatt.
They were ruling on whether a citizen had an inherent right to vote. You are making a valid argument, but SCOTUS quite plainly was not addressing the issue of who could be president.
I happen to feel that only a person born to 2 citizen parents and born on American soil should be eligible. In addition, I think that their education and upbringing is important-they should not be raised in foreign countries in madrasas for example.
But what I think and feel is quite different from what exists. Even the State Department rules state that it is unclear. And the law that Congress passed a long time ago showed that there was disagreement even way back then. That law was rendered moot in short order.
SCOTUS could rule on a specific case or Congress could propose a constitutional amendment. Otherwise legitimate arguments can be made on differing definitions and arguments will continue ad nauseum forever apparently.