1. A natural born condition is not a subject of law so it can be acquired by an operation of law.
2. An alien condition is naturalized by an operation of law.
3. The inclusion of any alien condition in law excludes any natural born condition.
4. We The People decreed in rules established and ordained for Government a fundamental duty and obligation exists to protect equally:
(a) any right derived from life, liberty, or property among all persons arising from a natural born or naturalized condition except eligibility for the office of President.
(b) any right derived from life among all persons arising from an alien condition.
On a side note ... if you read the assload ... and I mean assload of case citations which make a distinction between state citizenship and a federal citizenship established by the 14th Amendment which did not exist prior to the Civil War (and the Jim Crow era) think about it in this context:
Recognition as a United States person by designating a name on a United States birth certificate is acquired by an operation of law which differs radically and fundamentally from recognition as an American person which does not derive from an operation of law.
Perhaps that is a basis underlying that assload of cases which make a distinction between two forms of citizenship.
I realize what I am stating is not popular because my comments in this thread which make perfect sense in light of the above paragraph about recognition were heavily down voted:
But being unpopular doesn't change the fact there is an assload of jurisprudence which makes a distinction between two forms of citizenship and their acquisition.
Another side note ... there is a law to automatically naturalize any child born on American soil who is not of American parent(s). Clearly any child who derives a citizenship status solely from naturalization, which is an operation of law, is excluded from being considered natural born.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: