Article I and III of the new law declare that “[a] person who is born subject to thejurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.” Article II says that “[a]s used in this compact, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the UnitedStates’ has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to theUnited States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent whoowes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship ornationality in any foreign country.” Article II also says that “[f]or the purposes of this compact a person who owes noallegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen or national, or animmigrant accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States, or aperson without nationality in any foreign country.” The proposed law seeks to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” by tying thatdefinition to the 14th Amendment's “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. It then sets out todefine what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. It ties that clause to the child being bornto at least one parent who does not have any foreign allegiance. So, the proposed lawseeks to tell us what a “natural born Citizen” is by providing us with its own definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” and allegiance. But as we shall see, given how it defines“subject to the jurisdiction” and allegiance, Arizona would allow even a child born to twoalien parents to be included as a “natural born Citizen.” I. The Proposed Law Improperly Connects the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen to the14th Amendment Arizona has improperly tied the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” to the 14thAmendment. The meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has nothing to do with the 14thAmendment. The Framers wrote the clause in 1787 and the 14th Amendment was passedin 1868. There is no indication in the text of the amendment, its history, or in any courtdecision that suggests that the amendment changed Article II’s “natural born Citizen”clause. There is a critical difference between a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States”and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” “Representatives, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 2,and Senators, Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, must be citizens. Congress has the authority "to establishan uniform Rule of Naturalization" by which aliens can become citizen members of oursociety, Art. I, § 8, cl. 4; the judicial authority of the federal courts extends to suitsinvolving citizens of the United States "and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects," Art. III,§ 2, cl. 1, because somehow the parties are "different," a distinction further made by theEleventh Amendment; the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-SixthAmendments are relevant only to "citizens." The President must not only be a citizen but"a natural born Citizen," Art. II, § 1, cl. 5. One might speculate what meaning Art. IV, §2, cl. 1, has today.” Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 651-52 (1973) (Rehnquist, J.,dissenting).