Thanks.
There's now LOTS of evidence out there as to what the Founding Fathers and their generation meant by the term.
The thing that really simplified it for me was reading James Bayard's comments on the matter in his Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834), in which he described the term as being a "citizen by birth." He was talking about people in the exact situation as your son, and his specific point was that such people were eligible; one only had to be born a citizen.
His book was reviewed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who dominated the US Supreme Court for 34 years, starting just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified. Marshall basically said he found only one point in the whole book to correct - that Congress didn't seem to need permission from the States to build military and post roads, they already had it.
So it seems that Chief Justice John Marshall, "the Great Chief Justice," was of the opinion that whoever was a "citizen by birth" was a "natural born citizen," and eligible.
I figure if anybody ought to know, it would be him.
Yes there is, and you make a point to ignore or denounce all of it. Even the obvious stuff, like the Children of British loyalists remaining British though born here, and the status of Slaves and Indians throughout history, none of this breaches your walls of denial.
The thing that really simplified it for me was reading James Bayard's comments on the matter in his Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834), in which he described the term as being a "citizen by birth." He was talking about people in the exact situation as your son, and his specific point was that such people were eligible; one only had to be born a citizen.
No he wasn't. During a time when the only way to be "born a citizen" was by being born to citizen parents, (Once again note that Indians, Slaves and British Loyalists did not gain citizenship from being born here.) the term "born a citizen" had the same provenance as "natural citizen."
His book was reviewed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who dominated the US Supreme Court for 34 years, starting just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified. Marshall basically said he found only one point in the whole book to correct - that Congress didn't seem to need permission from the States to build military and post roads, they already had it. Here is where Jeff is being deceitful again. He deliberately leaves out the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall, applied Vattel throughout his entire Career, And he SPECIFICALLY APPLIED VATTEL to the citizenship status of Indians!
John Marshall also explicitly singled out and quoted the Vattel description of citizenship as the best available.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
Jeff's contention that Chief Justice John Marshall supported him is a lie, and Jeff knows it.
I figure if anybody ought to know, it would be him.
This is Absolutely correct, and Chief Justice John Marshall absolutely disagrees with you. He explicitly said so. You don't get a harder b*tchslap than the one Chief Justice Marshall gave you!