“The fact that the Constitution specifically makes the distinction. Otherwise it would be ridiculous to state that a President and Vice President had to be “natural born” citizens.”
This statement illustrates that many people making these arguments are not lawyers, or if they are lawyers, they should be disbarred because they don’t understand very elemental concepts of statutory construction.
First, you fail to understand the importance that the 14th Amendment was enacted after the ratification of the Constitution and Article 2. The 14th Amendment is not some lesser part of the Const. It is as much a part of the Const. as Acticle 2, Section 1. Since the 14th Amendment became part of the Const. after Art. 2, the drafters of the 14th were aware of Art.2, they are presumed to have modified it (if indeed it was a modification) and the latter modification will control.
Second, since the latter enacted section (the 14th) controls, it will be interpted according to the plain meaning of its words. The words about being born here are clear. The “subject to the jurisdiction” means to exclude such foreigners who are here on a diplomatic mission, who have diplomatic immunity. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the States. If Rubio’s and Jindal’s parents were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the states in which they were residing, then guess what? All the illegal and legal immigrants in prison for commiting violations of state statutes, such as murder, should be released immediately because a State has no juridiction over them according to this logic.
This brings up the last point. Statutes are construed to avoid absurd results and to be harmonious. There is nothing in the text of the 14th to indicate that the drafters intended to create two diffenent types of citizenships for people who are born here, i.e. ‘naturally born here’ and simply ‘born here’ citizens.
I realize this is going to fall upon deaf ears, but just as people who don’t understand how the body works aren’t able to give a valid opinion on how to perform surgery, people who don’t understand how the law works aren’t able ...
That is very true. The 14th Amendment reads...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
If 'jurisdiction' simply meant what legal authority a person's physical presence was under the "and" would be left out. If they had wanted to emphasize the importance of geographical 'jurisdiction' "thus" would have been placed where "and" is. "and" indicates an additional condition to the previous statement which already addressed the physical location (and therefore the local 'jurisdiction' of law.)
What it indicates by the way it is written is the potential that someone born on U.S. soil might be subject to a sovereign jurisdiction, apart from the geographical legal jurisdiction, other than the U.S. and the state they reside in. It makes no distinctions about particular circumstances such as being the child of a diplomat. Diplomats and their children are covered under separate U.S. statute law which clarifies that they are set apart from the general language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The words are very specific and the 14th Amendment was not written like a stream-of-consciousness monologue. The word "and" and the commas that separate the clause ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," indicate an entirely different condition than being subject to the laws where you happen to physically be which was addressed in the previous language of the amendment.