[sten]

your statement on the 14th amendment redefining the concept of natural born citizen is just hilarious. the purpose of the 14th was to insure citizenship to slaves, and indians by extension, born in the US. this does not say anything about distinguishing a native born and natural born citizen, just that such a person is a citizen at all.

as for telling it to the courts, i don't have to. i can read the meaning from senate hearings from the one who proposed the amendment back in 1868:

btw, if you actually read the highlighted text, you'll understand how anchor babies are not citizens either... since their parents do not reside within a state and aren't under the jurisdiction of the US, as they're here illegally.

[Nero Germanicus]

“Redefining” is your term, not mine. As the Supreme Court said in Minor v Happersett (1874): “The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that. “

I am talking about subsequent RULINGS on the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” following the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

You can’t “redefine” what was never “defined.” If you can find a Supreme Court ruling, a lower court ruling or an action of Congress that differentiates between an Article II, Section 1 “Natural Born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen of the United States at Birth,” please post those references and/or citations.