However, since neither of us can find the words, "US SUPREME COURT" on our paychecks, our opinions, nay the opinions of all on this site pro or con, count for naught.
The SCOTUS owes us one or two answers.
(1) "What is a citizen?"
(2) "What is the definition of a Natural Born Citizen that we can use?"
(3) Why exactly, are the children of illegal aliens to be, or not to be, considered citizens?"
(4) Is Obama a Natural Born Citizen? Is Cruz? Is Rubio? Is Jindal?"
Please note I ask 4 questions. Will you black-robed bumkissers GOYA and answer at least any two? I am easily satisfied.
The ultimate court of appeal in the US has had ample opportunity to address the issue. They have refused. It's fun to settle issues with bar fights. But it would certainly be more appropriate if the SCOTUS weighed in.
That's the kicker.
Natural born citizenship comes from your natural parents' relationship to the political 'State'. It stems from Natural Law, and is thus ultra-vires , or beyond the legal cope of the power and authority of government to change.
All any governmental organization can EVER do is repeat the definition that previously exists.
-------
At this point down the slippery slope, do you seriously think they will acknowledge what they can't control?
I don't.
The SCOTUS owes us one or two answers. [...] What is the definition of a Natural Born Citizen that we can use?
By the way, the phrase as exactly written in the Constitution has unusual capitalization: natural born Citizen. In the spirit of preserving the founders' original intent I think it is wise to preserve their original spelling as well.
There are so many who claim that, regarding presidential eligibility, it is enough to merely be born a citizen. Yet our country's founders required more than just being born a mere citizen, for the Constitution does not state that one must simply be a "born citizen," but specifically states that one must be a natural born Citizen.
The founders deliberated and debated over the content of the Constitution for many months. I do not believe that they offhandedly added superfluous, meaningless words. If they had meant to allow the broader category of "born citizen" they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to further restrict the requirement to being a natural born Citizen, which clearly excludes many types of mere "born citizens."
I would dearly love to hear the SCOTUS expound at length on what type of born citizens are not natural born Citizens. Obviously the difference must be significant.
Personally, I think the answer is obvious - those born exclusively within our country's jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else. These are the natural born Citizens in my opinion.
I would guess that well over 90 percent of our population falls into this group. When it would be so easy to field an excellent ticket that includes only candidates qualified to this not very restrictive category, why does the republican party seem to be so intent on doing otherwise?