Which aspect of the US Code that I cited conflicts with the Constitution?
And I can see you simply skipped right over your research assignment and came straight back to arguing with me without learning what I urged you to go learn.
Because I've already seen these debates with you on prior threads, and I've come to the conclusion that you have a particular viewpoint you're rather committed to in spite of the plain language of the Amendment itself.
The 14th is a naturalization amendment.
Notwithstanding that the 14th Amendment deals with much more than just citizenship, let's look at the Citizenship Clause as it is written:
14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 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."
Zoom in.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"
Increase magnification.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Enhance.
"All persons born or naturalized"
Enhance again!
"born or naturalized"
You call the 14th Amendment purely a "naturalization amendment", when the Amendment itself explicitly differentiates and distinguishes between citizenship attained by birth and citizenship attained by naturalization.
If the part you cited does not presume to define "natural born citizen" then why did you cite it? If it does, I point out that you cannot re-write constitutional law through a statute.
Because I've already seen these debates with you on prior threads, and I've come to the conclusion that you have a particular viewpoint you're rather committed to in spite of the plain language of the Amendment itself.
Your argument that the congress accidentally re-wrote the intentions of the framers in 1787 when they specified "natural born citizen", through the use of the 14th amendment, (which does not say "natural born citizen" in it anywhere) is not something to be regarded as serious.
Unless there was an amendment specifically written to *CHANGE* the presidential eligibility requirements, it remains the same as it was in 1787. I believe this view is regarded as "strict constructionism". I don't do "living constitution" bullsh*t.
You can't amend the constitution through a back door trick. It has to be amended overtly and with full understanding of the change to be made by the congress and the ratifying states.
You call the 14th Amendment purely a "naturalization amendment", when the Amendment itself explicitly differentiates and distinguishes between citizenship attained by birth and citizenship attained by naturalization.
Were former slaves born citizens, or were they naturalized?