This is a moot point. In reality, any federal court will view Harris to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be president because she was born on US soil.

Thanks for the reply.

That's very interesting, indeed, and I appreciate the sourcing, etc.

However, I think I disagree on one point:

"there was no need for the US Constitution to define Natural-Born Citizen, because the authors of the 14th Amendment understood the term’s meaning was already well understood.

Like the term “ARMS” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 2nd Amendment, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 14th Amendment.

There is a problem here, because although the authors of the amendment may well have 'understood' (meaning that they ascribed a certain defined meaning to it) the term or expression (although i do not know if "natural-born citizen" was an existing term at the time, like "arms" was in 1776), they are not alive today.

This is why the Supreme Court exists: to interpret and further define constitutional issues if and when they arise.

So, if Bingham et al intended for this to be the definition: "all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens" then it would seem the definition needs to be reinforced by the SC, because those words themselves are NOT in the constitution or the law (amendment).

The "arms" question to. Does the right to bear arms include any and all implementation usable for either defense or attack? Does the constitution guarantee a citizen's right to develop and posses nuclear weaponry, for example?

I'm asking this because HOW these terms are understood and implemented in the current and future times would seemingly need further definition. (I'm absolutely pro-2nd by the way, der. I'm just querying how to approach and understand the issues involved).

I can accept that Bingham et al intended "natural born citizen" to mean (as you have quoted above), BUT, it appears that has not been sufficiently defined in the modern era, and there is a need for the SC to adjudicate, in order to make it clear.

I suppose the issue has never really been challenged in terms of the modern era. It's noteworthy that if such a definition was upheld, then Obama would be ineligible regardless of whether his birth certificate was legit or not, because his father was Kenyan.

In any case, thanks for the excellent dig.

Yep.

I think this would need to be clarified by the SC. I listened to the lecture, and thought it made 100% common sense, particularly inheritance by birth (in the blood) vis citizenship conferred by human act, such as legislation or document, etc.

Very enlightening.

Rather amazed that the Kamala thing is not more widely understood.

Don't be stingy. Share the link!

Are you saying, then, that if John Doe's father and mother are both US citizens legitimately and have resided in the US, but happen to travel to Japan on assignment and then John is born there, that he is NOT a natural born citizen?

Would he have to be naturalized?

If that is true then we are only wasting time looking like retards trying to twist a way that she is ineligible. The plain truth is that she is eligible to hold the office of President and that is not going to change. Just because we do not like a fact does not mean it is fake news.

Nobody gives a shit if you disagree, What matters is the literal text of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This was determined in 1898. That is 126 years of legal precedent. Neither you, nor anyone else will ever successfully argue that she is ineligible.