“That may be your definition of “natural born citizen”, but it is not so stipulated in the Constitution, which does not define the term. Leaving the matter to the discretion of Congress.”
At the time the phrase was written, the phrase was known. So, no, it was not up to interpretation.
I’m open to being corrected, but if James Madison, able lawyer he, had wanted to clarify that point, he could have.
Let’s stipulate your point for the sake of argument. The term was “generally understood” at the time.
Congress has since, after a civil war and 27 amendments, provided clear statutory language that forms the legal basis for natural citizenship.
INAL, but it would appear that there would be at least two possible challenges to the current law:
1) it is unconstitutional since it seeks to re-define the commonly understood meaning of the term “natural born citizen” at the time the constitution was ratified and or;
2) using 8 USC 1401 to define ‘natural born citizen’ rests on the assumption that a person is ‘natural born’ if he doesn’t need to be “naturalized” to become a citizen. You could then argue that 8 USC 1401 is good enough for most things, but not good enough to qualify a person for the office of President. But I think that’s a stretch.
Something else: I’m not asking you to do my research for me, but if you have a ready reference to the use of the term “natural born citizen” from the period of say, 1780-1790 that supports your definition, I would be most appreciative. I’m always pleased to have my thinking corrected, if I am, in fact, in error.
That's true. But it didn't have the meaning you birthers want to give it.