What a natural born person is, would then be the key and that should not be written in stone. The English Common Law interpretation is that such things are determined by male bloodlines, yet that ignores the medical facts even though we now know they simply should not be. I mean what is her blood line, 'chopped liver'?
After all she does confer more than half of the child`s genetic inheritance, the X chromosome being larger than the Y, and this inheritance includes the all important mitochondrial DNA. Not to mention running the medical risk of carrying and birthing the child!
His mother was an American citizen in good standing. She was legally in another nation at that time, in pursuit of legal activities. Her mate was legally her husband. The father in question was in good legal standing. He was the legal husband of the mother of the child in question. He agreed with her wish to confer her nationality to their offspring. There was no ulterior motive behind that decision or their decision to bear an offspring.
Therefore a ruling would definitely be in order. I believe the above facts should allow a woman, under such established factors, to confer that aspect of her individual sovereignty unto her progeny. So in this case it very much does follow the maternal bloodline, and rightly so. Otherwise we do propagate the concept of second class status to American women, this is not so feminist clap-trap argument, but goes to the heart of individual sovereignty. Is it equal or are men more sovereign than women?
“Otherwise we do propagate the concept of second class status to American women, this is not so feminist clap-trap argument, but goes to the heart of individual sovereignty. Is it equal or are men more sovereign than women?”
This may offend your post modern feminist sensibilities, but the patriarchs who wrote the constitution believed that the citizenship condition of the father was the citizenship of the children. It was not until the passage of the Cable Act in 1922 that a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country could transmit US citizenship onto her child. So article II was passed with that understanding still in effect.
Last time I checked, 1922 was LONG after Art II section I , clause 5 was ratified. It has NOT been modified by an Article V amendment. (yet) The original intent of that Articl still applies.
You use English Common Law for that interpretation of ‘Natural Born’.
..................................................
I do not. Vattel is my source as it was of the Framers.
Evidently you have not read a word i have written as i have NEVER cited English common Law. IN FACT I have argued against it.