“Redefining” is your term, not mine. As the Supreme Court said in Minor v Happersett (1874): “The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that. “
I am talking about subsequent RULINGS on the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” following the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
You can’t “redefine” what was never “defined.” If you can find a Supreme Court ruling, a lower court ruling or an action of Congress that differentiates between an Article II, Section 1 “Natural Born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen of the United States at Birth,” please post those references and/or citations.
Glad you quoted that. It demonstrates that the 14th amendment definition is *NOT* the definition of "natural born citizen."
The 14th amendment says exactly who will be a "citizen". That the court recognized that it was silent on what constitutes a "natural born citizen", demonstrates that the 14th amendment definition cannot apply.
If it did, the court's would have said, "The Constitution says EXACTLY who shall be "natural born citizens." "