Jeff I would like to get your published references for Marshall, Story, and Kent as to their actual opinions/decisions on the definition of ‘natural born citizen. With due respect to your opinions I believe these men’s actual presentations would help my personal understanding.
Marshall, Story and Kent all lent their approval to Bayard's "Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."
I have been giving the publication date for this book as 1834. The first edition was actually published in 1833, with the second edition following the next year.
There were reprints over the years, including in 1840 and 1850.
The following is from the 1840 reprint of the Second Edition:
Exactly who is eligible to be President is an important, high-profile item. Even so, birthers might be able to plausibly argue that one distinguished expert had somehow missed a glaring error. But Marshall, Story AND Kent? And other distinguished jurists as well? Not a chance.
The fact is, Bayard published his book, stated with crystal clarity that "natural born citizen" meant "citizen by birth," and that anyone born a citizen overseas because he had US parents was eligible to be President.
And not one person had the slightest word of correction to say to that. Because everybody agreed.
Marshall corrected him that Congress didn't need the assent of the States to build military and post roads. They already had it. That's how carefully Marshall read Bayard's book.
Again, that image says 1834. Should say 1833.
I did have the date right, though, in my long list of quotes on what “natural born citizen” meant in early America.