The Naturalization Act of 1790 was REPEALED in 1795, due in part to concerns about possible negative repercussions to the natural born citizen provisions of Article II. Note the emphasis in the 1790 Act on the FATHER. The framers were patriarchical, and they believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship condition of the FATHERS. That emphasis was due in large measure to their reliance upon the Emmerich de Vattel definition of natural born citizen derived from the “Law of Nations” which is referred to in the opening clause of Article I.
The only definition for a constitutional term within the constitution is for the crime of treason. There is no definition for high crimes and misdemeanors either, but that has not stopped impeachment matters from proceeding.
Also, even in the 1790 Act, the wording of it made reference to parent(s) plural, not singular.
Finally, NO STATUTE can modify the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That can only be done thru an Article V amendment process.
You’re right, and I knew that the law and the one of 1795 was superseded by future laws. I admittedly didn’t catch that it just says “citizen” in section 3...
But it sets up an interesting question of whether there truly are two classes of born citizens. I know where you stand.
There are others who contend that someone who is born a citizen and doesn’t have to go through any naturalization process would thus be considered natural born by virtue of the fact they don’t have to be naturalized.
I’ve also seen arguments that contend the 1795 act doesn’t explicitly redefine the term in Article II because “natural born” was left out.
Apparently it’s all above my paygrade...but again, I know where you stand. :-)