“Thank you. I see a lot of efforts have been made recently to try to redefine what “natural born” citizenship means. When Vattel’s definition is brought up and quoted word for word, it’s dismissed as poorly translated or as irrelevant.”
It is irrelevent, he is a foreigner. We don’t like Ginsburg using foreign law to define US cases, why should we like that?
We don’t need a foreigner to tell us who an NBC is, we have the Constitution itself and the birthright citizenship clause.
“The 14th amendment concerns itself with Citizenship, particularily the citizenship of former slaves and their decendants, and not the Constitutional eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship for a president.”
But the question is this: If you are the son of slaves in America and born in a US, are you eligible to be President?
“In effect the 14th amendment has no bearing on the words written in the Constitution nearly 100 years before. “
Obviously this is wrong in the the sense that all amendment modify the Constitution’s meaning.
So, are you saying that the term citizens of the United States used in the 14th Ammendment is the same as natural-born citizens ?