3 groups of citizens

The first group of citizens folks know are those who immigrated here and went through naturalization programs. These folks are known as naturalized citizens BUT if they were naturalized by the federal government they are not citizens at all because the federal government was never delegated power to naturalize new citizens, only to make "an uniform rule of naturalization" which would be used by each and avery state when the staet naturalized new citizens. The next group are those folks born here of parents who are not citizens but ONLY if these newly born are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The folks are citizens but they are just citizens. Lastly there is the special class of Natural Born Citizens as defined by Vattel in Law of Nations. The old story that any kid can grow up to be president is and always was a lie. NBCs are born in country to CITIZEN PARENTS, BOTH parents not one or the other. Want to argue come up with proof. Do not use court rulings because the courts do not have the legitimate authority to define the terms and clauses of the Constitution.

Why are certain terms defined in the Constitution?

Perhaps these terms need no definition because these terms were commonly known to the Framers. If one reviews the notes of the 1787 Convention, one finds that no one questioned terms like Natural Born Citizen. NBC was defined and known through Vattel's work, Law of Nations, a work referenced in Article 1 Section 9 Pp 10. In a review of The Documentary History of the Ratification, a series of 40+ texts published by U Chicago Press, I found no questions about the terms. Other terms that seem strange or undefined to modern ignorants were also known to the Framers. Militia was known to be all persons capable of keeping and bearing Arms, primarily based on fitness and in some cases an age group, but still, leaving the membership to a general class, those capable. Questions concerning terms in the Constitution come primarily from those wishing to corrupt our system. They attempt to manipulate the words, calling the Constitution a living document but a living document that can be changed on whim does not need a method of amendment.

S2pid people in elected office

I believe everyone who is in elected office who violates any part of the Constitution whether they know it or not should be drawn and quartered. There can be no excuse for not knowing the Constitution and I do not mean Constitutional Law which is so fucked up, it is beyond any saving. Bacis understanding of Constitutions: If it's not written in the document it is withheld, a withheld power, right, privilege, immunity, or anything else. There are absolutely no penumbras, emanations, or implciations of powers in the Constitution. No part of a government created by a constitution has authority to define even a single letter of that constitution. Rights are absolute. Delegations of powers are EXTREmELY limited with no exceptions, no exigencies, no fucking compelling govt interest. If the words are not in the document, they don't exist with respect to the document. If you are too stupid to grasp thsi, you should remove yourself from society.