Re: 207 - “If you read my post, you would know that the above does not meet my definition of a natural born citizen, so I don’t understand what you’re trying to point out.”
As far as I know, neither Congress or the Judiciary currently subscribe to that view. Suffice to say it’s a point of contention that will probably not get resolved anytime soon, as it may not even be a justiciable question.
The Preamble is considered explanatory text and not the actual contents of the structure of government, but it explains the context that the framework of government was expected to fulfill.
When We the People of the United States delegated certain enumerated powers to the federal government, it was with the intents and purposes that were stated in the Preamble. My definition, to me, is true to those intents and purposes.
That's why I ask, whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children? Does allowing the children of non-citizen foreigners to be natural born citizens "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" and our own children?
Is that what the Framers believed they were doing? Alexander Hamilton didn't think so, at least not when he wrote Federalist #68 in 1787. Thomas Paine didn't think so, at least not when he wrote "The Rights of Man" in 1791.
And I don't think so, today.
-PJ