There is no legitimate contention on what Natural Born means.
Four Supreme court opinions have stated that it means two parents must be citizens and zero opinions have disagreed.
Four Supreme court opinions have stated that it means two parents must be citizens and zero opinions have disagreed.
Sorry, but this is simply nonsense.
Find me ONE statement -- JUST ONE EXPLICIT STATEMENT FROM ANY US SUPREME COURT RULING that state that BOTH jus soli AND jus sanguinis ARE REQUIRED for natural born citizen status.
You can't do it, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
What DOES exist are statements to the effect of, "IT HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED that those who met both qualifications were natural born..." (whereas there HAS BEEN some DOUBT about the other categories.
Doubting or dispute of a matter does NOT mean that it's not true. It means that it HASN'T REALLY BEEN DECIDED.
On the other hand, there are lots of statements within Wong Kim Ark that imply that ONLY jus soli is required for natural born status.
The Supreme Court has noted that the Constitution must be understood within the context of English common law, because that was the context and understanding in which it was framed.
In that context, Justice Gray, writing the majority opinion of WKA (which was dissented to by only two Justices), writes:
...every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects.
...this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke... that,
if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,
and saying that such a child "was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . .
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Great Britain considers and treats such persons [those born within its borders] as natural-born subjects, and cannot therefore deny the right of other nations to do the same.
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet... "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject."
You talk about adhering to the Constitution, but apparently you're only willing to adhere to the Constitution if it says what you want it to say.
The moment it stops saying what you want it to say, you're prepared to ditch it.
I'm not prepared to ditch the Constitution on your opinion OR mine. The meaning of the Constitution must stand above a popular vote if it to stand at all.
If you don't like what the Constitution says, then change it. There is a process for Constitutional amendment, and that process has been exercised quite a few times in our national history.
But don't throw its words out of the window based on your opinion.
I don't claim that "there is no legitimate contention" that jus soli is sufficient for NBC status. The fact is, no Supreme Court ruling addressing the specific requirements and definition of NBC status for the purpose of Presidential eligibility has ever been made. And some arguments were, in fact, made in the MINORITY opinion of WKA, to which two of the USSC Justices adhered.
But to claim that "there is no legitimate contention... that it means two parents must be citizens" is just nonsense, when our clearest court case seems pretty clearly to indicate otherwise.
This was the discussion I told you I didn't want to get into.