“I wonder if she knows the requirements for a natural born citizen circa 1961”
“Those have not changed since The Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. That’s the day the Constitution was signed and passed by the Constitutional convention. “
You should know better. laws concerning how citizenship at birth is acquired have changed by US Statute and by Constitutional Amendment over the years, most notably by the 14th Amendment ‘birthright citizenship’ clause.
“There having been no amendments changing the defintion” - NB that the Constitution does not *define* “natural-born citizen” within the Constitution itself in the first place. You are not using Constitutional definitions but old English common law. Big diff.
It is certainly legally erroneous to use old English common law definitions of who is ‘natural-born’ and imagine that holds forever instead of the US statutory law and US Constitution definitions for birthright (natural-born) citizenship. US law and US Constitution always trumps common law, common law merely instructs as to the meaning and source of US statutory law.
14th amendment:
“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.”
And you should know that none of those laws, nor the 14th amendment say anything about "natural born citizenship". Well except for the 1790 law, which was replaced in 1795, with pretty the same language, but without the part about children born abroad of citizen parents being considered Natural Born Citizens. It's speculation, but I suspect someone pointed out that they had no power to create or define natural born citizens. They did leave in the part about citizenship not being handed down to someone whose father, though a citizen had never lived in the US. They were really serious about keeping out foreign influence, except as controlled through the immigrantation and naturalization process. That of course produces natural born citizens only in the first generation born in the US, after the parents were naturalized.
So you'd be happy with the Congress changing the definition of "the press", "freedom of speech". "arms", "keep", "bear" or any number of other Constitutional terms, including "the people"?
You might, but I sure as heck would not.
The notion that "birthright or 14th amendment citizenship is the same as "natural born" is your opinion, others have theirs. The courts have not defined, except in dicta which doesn't count, "natural born" and even then, not for purposes of the Constitutional eligibility to the office of President.