Looks like this is still very much in dispute. The arguments that a natural born citizen is one who is born of parents who are citizens, regardless of where they were born, and that simply being born in the US doesn't qualify one as being a "natural born" citizen, only in being a citizen.
This particular explanation makes the most sense to me, BUT I think it's noteworthy that there is wide dispute and/or disparity in views on the topic.
Thanks for this: Here is the argument in a nutshell with counter arguemnts to some of the common counters:
The True Definition
Given the significant reliance of the Founding Fathers on Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations for understanding and defining various legal and constitutional principles, it is reasonable to assert that Vattel’s definition of "natural born citizen" was the Founders' definition of the term.
Pre-Counters
Modern Legal Consensus: Legal consensus, even among scholars and judges, does not have the authority to change the original meaning of the Constitution. The true test of constitutionality lies in adherence to the original text and intent of the framers, not in contemporary consensus.
Judicial Precedent and Practice: Judicial decisions and precedents can be mistaken and do not override the original meaning of the Constitution. Historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, illustrate that the Supreme Court can err and be later corrected. The Constitution’s true meaning should remain steadfast, regardless of judicial misinterpretation.
Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: While the idea of a living Constitution allows for the application of its principles to contemporary issues, it should not permit changes to the meanings of its terms without formal amendment. This ensures that the Constitution is not subject to arbitrary reinterpretation, which could undermine its stability and integrity. Changes to the Constitution should be made through the formal amendment process as outlined in Article V.
Practical Considerations: Longstanding practices and societal acceptance do not confer constitutionality. Practices inconsistent with the original meaning should be corrected through the amendment process, not through gradual acceptance or reinterpretation.
Kamala Harris's Eligibility Under Originalist Interpretation
Based on this strict originalist interpretation, Kamala Harris, born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, would not qualify as a "natural born citizen" according to the definition understood by the Founding Fathers and Vattel’s work.
Thank you for this insight.
Looks like this is still very much in dispute. The arguments that a natural born citizen is one who is born of parents who are citizens, regardless of where they were born, and that simply being born in the US doesn't qualify one as being a "natural born" citizen, only in being a citizen.
This particular explanation makes the most sense to me, BUT I think it's noteworthy that there is wide dispute and/or disparity in views on the topic.
This thread has been an education process for me.
Same
Sorry. I meant to include this clip (below) as the explanation that makes the most sense to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=h9PxdDvgQks
Thanks for this: Here is the argument in a nutshell with counter arguemnts to some of the common counters:
The True Definition
Pre-Counters
Modern Legal Consensus: Legal consensus, even among scholars and judges, does not have the authority to change the original meaning of the Constitution. The true test of constitutionality lies in adherence to the original text and intent of the framers, not in contemporary consensus.
Judicial Precedent and Practice: Judicial decisions and precedents can be mistaken and do not override the original meaning of the Constitution. Historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, illustrate that the Supreme Court can err and be later corrected. The Constitution’s true meaning should remain steadfast, regardless of judicial misinterpretation.
Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: While the idea of a living Constitution allows for the application of its principles to contemporary issues, it should not permit changes to the meanings of its terms without formal amendment. This ensures that the Constitution is not subject to arbitrary reinterpretation, which could undermine its stability and integrity. Changes to the Constitution should be made through the formal amendment process as outlined in Article V.
Practical Considerations: Longstanding practices and societal acceptance do not confer constitutionality. Practices inconsistent with the original meaning should be corrected through the amendment process, not through gradual acceptance or reinterpretation.
Kamala Harris's Eligibility Under Originalist Interpretation