On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 at 9:52pm, Robert Sheridan wrote: [...]
:Why couldn't the Court hold that the 'natural persons' text has been :superceded by other constitutional law that is in fact much broader and :more powerful than that historical anachronism, judging by today's :standards? Given that one of the rationales (still urged) of the restriction appears to be that a foreign-born citizen has potentially divided loyalties, that rationale seems to me to be significantly undermined by the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that "all persons born ... in the United States ... are citizens of the United States," regardless of the citizenship of their parents; such persons, too, may have "divided loyalties." (I say this as one who became a citizen of the U.S. just a few days ago!) At least, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to supercede the "natural born" requirement doesn't seem to me to be entirely implausible. Patrick -- Patrick Wiseman Professor of Law GSU College of Law
