<>You still haven’t shown any information which suggests that the Founders preferred that definition over the common law definition, which was at least as well known to them.<>
Yes he has — many times. Try Founder and historian David Ramsay for one:
Where exactly do those quotes from Ramsay’s “1789 Article” come from? They don’t come from “History of the American Revolution”.
Never mind, I found the article. I strongly question Apuzzo’s claim that “We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a ‘natural born Citizen’ the same way that Ramsay did.”
Ramsay’s definition does not seem consistent with what Madison said before the House of Representatives in 1789: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
I don’t see how Ramsay’s and Madison’s views can be reconciled. If they can’t be, then there was disagreement among the Founders as to what a “natural born citizen” was. If so, then the issue of whether “natural born citizen” derives its Constitutional definition from English law or French law cannot be resolved by an article by Ramsay.