I’m a pretty smart guy, but I’m far from being a legal scholar on the NBC clause in the Constitution and the Amendment to that clause.
But this debate over NBC has raged on since 1787 and from that time forward the scholars and experts still disagree.
Anyone confidently stating that the Framers knew exactly what they were doing and they clearly put into words what they meant is kidding themselves.
And anyone looking back these 236 years and stating there is no ambiguity in natural citizens, natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens is just a fool.
Make your point in any way you want. And there will be legal Constitutional experts who will show you how wrong you are.
Most legal scholars have been barking up the wrong tree.
But this debate over NBC has raged on since 1787 and from that time forward the scholars and experts still disagree.
The problems with Natural Born Citizen were deliberately created by William Rawle who wrote a book, ("A View of the Constitution") That deliberately represented birth in a nation as the only requirement for citizenship.
His book became quite prominent in the early legal colleges and it was widely read by the legal people of that era. (1829s and later.)
Rawle Deliberately misled people as to the truth, and his book was responsible for leaving many legal scholars with an incorrect understanding of US Citizenship.
Now I say he deliberately misled people because he was told by the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that he was wrong about this, and yet he did it anyway. He only published his book after everyone who could contradict him had died, but there does exist a book in which they clearly show Rawle to be wrong, and Rawle was himself very aware of this book because it was a prominent legal book in the 1800s.
Anyone confidently stating that the Framers knew exactly what they were doing and they clearly put into words what they meant is kidding themselves.
You follow the evidence, and when the evidence leads you to a conclusion, it is the best you can do.
And anyone looking back these 236 years and stating there is no ambiguity in natural citizens, natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens is just a fool.
Well let me ask you this. What did they call "citizens" before 1776?
Why did we change to start using the word "citizen"?
Make your point in any way you want. And there will be legal Constitutional experts who will show you how wrong you are.
Of that I have no doubt. They will say "This court said..." and "That court *SAID*.." and they will urge me to believe something is *TRUE* because a court *SAID SO*.
And that is all the proof they will provide.
I have long ago rejected the idea that I should believe something is true because a court *SAYS SO.*
The Courts say a man is a woman. The courts are liars. Some are just ignorant, but most are just liars.
I don't ask people to believe courts' assertions. I ask people to look at the evidence with their own eyes, and come to what they think is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
And the evidence does lead in a different direction than what "the Courts" claim.