[RegulatorCountry]

The Act itself wasn't unconstitutional.

Congressional overreach in attempting to legislate beyond the power enumerated to them by the Constitution is by definition unconstitutional. It was an authority that they did not possess, and therefore the Act was repealed and replaced in 1795 by another Act with the "natural born citizen" language deleted, and just "citizen" in it's place.

That was within the power enumerated, and Constitutional. It was not repealed as that of 1790 was repealed. Seems pretty clear to me. It was recognized as unconstitutional.

[patlin]

I get where you are coming from. I just don't happen agree with it because of the extensive study of all the historical works of the founding generation. The citizens determine who were the natural born, they were/are the children born to 2 citizen parents regardless of location of birth per the common law of nature & nations. Little did they know until it was implemented they they would have to readdress the issue to take into account the old feudal law. Go figure, a Congress that didn't get it right, right out of the starting gate. The founders were very wise men, but they were hardly perfect and neither was their 1st legislative actions. They made many mistakes. To deny natural born status to a child born abroad to American parents, a child who was never recognized by the foreign country as a member of that society, as Tucker would say, is utterly absurd. Was Moses any less an Israelite because he was born in Egypt? Should he have been denied the leadership because of it? He was claimed by the Egyptians under false pretenses that were not the doctrine of nature, biut the actions of man or rather a deceitful woman. I would hate to imagine what the world would look like today if he had been denied that role.