If the Founders and Framers established a Constitutional rule, and that Constitutional rule has never been changed by Constitutional Amendment, then the Constitutional rule still applies.
Until and unless we change the Constitution by Amending it.
This is really very basic and elementary. Our Founding Fathers established a Constitution. That Constitution is the fundamental law of the land.
If you don't like the Constitution the way they set it up, then change it. They provided a process for that, and that Amendment process has been used now 27 times.
But don't misrepresent what the Founding Fathers and the Framers meant.
I thought fidelity to the Founding Fathers, the Framers, and the Constitution was the mark of a Patriot. I thought fidelity to those founding principles was the entire purpose of this site, and the shared goal of those who congregate here.
It's certainly MY goal.
And that is why I am not indulgent of you or anybody else twisting the Constitution. Even if you think it's for a good purpose.
You do so by basing your entire argument on the assumption that the exception of the Naturalization Acts are still in operation today as they were then.
No, I do so by basing my entire argument on the available EVIDENCE as to what the Founders and the Framers meant when they said "natural born citizen."
You and some others base YOUR entire argument on what you THINK would be best for the country: A complete elimination of the possibility of any foreign influence at all upon all persons who might be elected President.
That sounds like a noble and America-interest goal, and I suppose that it is.
There's just one problem.
That's not what the Founders and the Framers said.
So the proper approach, if you believe you have a better idea than the Founders and the Framers, is to change the Constitution that they wrote.
One of the great things about the Founders and the Framers is that they KNEW they were not giving us a perfect system of government. They KNEW that it had some flaws in it, from the very beginning.
Perhaps the greatest flaw in the INITIAL system they gave us was its toleration of slavery. Some of those who founded the country made a sad compromise with that institution so that they could simply get the country launched. They believed that if they were able to launch this country, eventually the institution of slavery would be extinguished. And it was.
I think they also knew that other things might need to be fixed, and that times might change, necessitating changes in the Constitution.
So they provided a means for us to Amend that document.
Again, if you believe they should have made it so that only those born on US soil of US citizen parents could be elected President, then you can certainly make that argument. There is something to be said for it.
As for "putting words in your mouth:" I haven't. I am simply suggesting to you what your best REAL argument would be.
The US Constitutional rule states they make make a uniform rule of naturalization for the States to follow.
The State Constitutions enumerate no such rule. They made a legislative act that would have sunsetted just as ALL mere legislative acts do.
Again, you attempt confuse two desperate concepts to justify an unauthorized authority.
BTW - please show me any words contained in the Constitution that grants the federal authority the ability to determine:
1)who is or is not a citizen
2)what does or does not constitute 'natural born'.
AND
the authority to impliment such acts within the States as may fall under the naturalization rule.
-----
That Constitution is the fundamental law of the land.
For the federal government, not the People.
Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law
-----
But don't misrepresent what the Founding Fathers and the Framers meant.
I agree completely. That's why I'm attempting to prevent you from it.
-----
As for "putting words in your mouth:" I haven't. I am simply suggesting to you what your best REAL argument would be.
As you have yet to provide any evidence to support your contentions against a single one of my arguments, I would submit that I am not the one in need of advice.
And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, “that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state.
View of the Constitution of the United States George Tucker