Again, that’s a distinction between “person who was born a citizen,”[sup]1[/sup] and “naturalized citizen.”[sup]2[/sup] Not a distinction between “citizen”[sup]3[/sup] and “natural born citizen.”[sup]4[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup] The kind of citizen defined by INA § 301-309
[sup]2[/sup] The kind of citizen defined by INA § 310 et seq.
[sup]3[/sup] The kind of citizen that congress is allowed to define.
[sup]4[/sup] The kind of citizen that the SCOTUS has not yet defined.
I agree, and should have clarified that. This is the whole crux of the argument, and if you (the general you) are unable to grok this crucial distinction, then your understanding of this issue will be misconceived.
Or Congress could actually write a definition into law. That IS within their purview; after all they enact legislation all the time to put into specific effect provisions of the Constitution that are worded generally (Interstate Commerce anyone?) - the courts can then review the law, but that requires someone with standing mounting a succesful challenge. It would certainly have removed one small annoyance from Messrs. Goldwater, McCain and Obama’s campaigns if at some point in these 220 years someone would have thought of writing something to the effect of “for the purposes of the election of the President, Natural Born Citizen as provided in Article 2 of the Cosntitution of the United States means any person who is a citizen of the United States by birth, and has remained a citizen of the United States their entire life, having never relinquished said citizenship”. Yet 110 Congresses seem to have gone by thinking there was no need to do so, somehow.
Richard Nixon was allowed to be president, and he was conceived via anal sex. Or so I imagine.
The thread title is a variation on an old joke, so this entire thread is a whoosh.
To the OP: for gods’ sake don’t tell Orly Taitz about this, or we’ll never hear the end of it.