"What year is it to you? 2023 or 1825?"As a matter of fact, yes. Rawle wrote "A View of the Constitution" in 1825. After the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in 1866. Your historical research should have made that clear to you."Did someone pass a constitutional amendment in the intervening time?"
Regardless, what current US citizenship laws and USSC decisions are, supersede any historical laws and opinions of what the law should be. This is a point those bringing up historical arguments on what they think the law is, meaning what they want it to be, keep ignoring.
You are trying to claim that an amendment (one not even legitimately passed) to give citizenship to freed slaves, somehow re-wrote the Presidential eligibility requirements?
What, are you one of those believers in the "living constitution" where it means whatever you want it to mean and you don't have to worry with all that nasty amendment process?
Apart from that, the 14th is a naturalization process. Everyone who is made into a citizen by the 14th, is a naturalized citizen. They are naturalized by this amendment. The people debating the amendment even *SAY* it is a naturalization law.
So no, naturalized citizens don't get to be president. Well, they didn't before Obama came along.
Regardless, what current US citizenship laws and USSC decisions are, supersede any historical laws and opinions of what the law should be.
Yeah, that ole Supreme Court never gets anything wrong. Plessey v Ferguson anyone?