You’re right, and I knew that the law and the one of 1795 was superseded by future laws.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. :-)
It isn’t above your paygrade. The concept that the Constitution can only be understood by Constitutional lawyers is mal-education.
The Constitution isn’t that difficult to understand.
Justification for some of the crap federal judges have come up with...THAT might require a post-graduate degree in such matters.