[nomad]

So the Ninth Amendment, section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Nineteenth Amendment do not modify this bloodline argument? Well if you refer to your original Common Law bloodline interpretation here then only the right to vote has been conferred to women. No other rights can be inferred or implied. Property, inheritance, jurisprudence, any of the modern rights exorcised by women are potentially just ‘liberal’ interpretations and therefore unconstitutional, given that they could be in violation of the Common Law bloodline argument the oligarchs employed? These rights are not directly enumerated, so they don`t really exist, right?

[DMZFrank]

The meaning of Article II sec 1 stands fixed until modified by a subsequent amendment. Not even the 14th amendment changed it in any way shape form or fashion. Not the Immigration and Naturalization Acts of 1790 or 1795 or 1802, nor the 19th amendment or women’s rights generally. IT HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED.

Prior to the Cable Act, when Article II was passed, a US woman married to a foreign national, who gives birth to a child out of the country could not transmit citizenship to her new born. Even AFTER the Cable Act, they would only be a natualized by statute citizen and never a natural born one.

These other arguments you raise have no bearing on Article II. NBC ONLY applies to eligibility for the office of POTUS. Nothing else.