[freethinker_for_freedom]

To be crystal clear, “natural born citizen” would need to be defined in the constitution. Many, if not most, Americans would feel like anyone born in the US to a US citizen mother would be a “natural born citizen” absent some definition to the contrary in the constitution itself.

For the Supreme Court to say that because this fellow Vattel in his writings defined “natural born citizen” in a certain way, we are bound to follow that definition and overturn the popular vote would be to put the Supreme Court into the realm of partisan politics in a way that neither it nor the republic could stand.

[conservativegramma]

What part of this thread aren’t you grasping???? The ‘RECORDS of the FEDERAL CONVENTION of 1787’ doesn’t even remotely ring a bell regarding the constitution???

Vattel defines “Natural Born Citizen”. Vattel is cited numerous times during this convention.

Hint: The Constitution was being written during this convention.

Our Republic is already in the realm of partisan politics by refusing to follow the constitution...we’re not only up in our necks in partisan politics we are losing our Republic and our freedom. They sure as hell better deal with this or they are committing treason along with everyone else in Congress.

[philman_36]

To be crystal clear, “natural born citizen” would need to be defined in the constitution.
I wouldn't have believed it but you've actually managed to top your previous ignorance.
With your "free thinking" a whole dictionary would have to accompany the Constitution to give meaning to every word therein!

[Windflier]

For the Supreme Court to say that because this fellow Vattel in his writings defined “natural born citizen” in a certain way, we are bound to follow that definition and overturn the popular vote would be to put the Supreme Court into the realm of partisan politics in a way that neither it nor the republic could stand.

The court got "into the realm of partisan politics" in the 2000 election when they stopped the vote counting in Florida, didn't they?

They knew then, that whichever way they decided, it was going to be unpopular, but they did their job and settled the question.

[little jeremiah]

It has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has to do with this simple question:

Is the USA a nation of laws or not?

Everyone here would feel just the same if it was a Republican president with a foreign father, who was hiding every scrap of documentation of his citizenship history (and every other aspect of his life).

Exactly the same,

Partisan politics - no freaking way. It’s about the rule of law.

[danamco]

How did you chose your tag-name and why???

[bgill]

To be crystal clear, “natural born citizen” would need to be defined in the constitution.

The constitution didn't define the word "is" either but everyone, with the exception of BJ, is crystal clear on its definition.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

To be crystal clear, “natural born citizen” would need to be defined in the constitution.

Anything "crystal clear" in there about an illegitimate child born to a British subject/Kenyan father, and an underage nonresident mother being eligible?