Why are you putting words in my mouth?
The Founders chose not to provide an explicit definition of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. Lacking such a definition, the recourse for understanding the term is to refer to the common law.
Had this been a civil law system, the lack of an explicit definition *would* have been an "f up", to use your phrase.
But they didn't; as such, in the course of future disputes, recourse was then had to the common law, which was then built up with each subsequent court case related to citizenship. After any constitutional amendments (such as the 14th Amendment), future court cases were then reinterpreted in light of changes to the supreme law of the land.
If the Founders had wanted to sever us from the common law entirely, they would have said so. But on the contrary, the extant documents of the day indicate that it was retained, overwritten only by subsequent laws and statutes to the contrary.
Citing 1866 judge’s declaration of the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is exactly akin to giving credence to a state election official’s decision of Trump insurrection and removal from the ballot.
sorry to step on your toes, but will not let you get away with untenable illogic. politely not naming it idiocy.
-fJRoberts-
I take it that in your opinion the Founding Fathers should have been required to provide explicit definitions of: “We the People, more Perfect Union, provide common defense, establish justice, domestic tranquility,... United States of America, etc.”
and that in absence of such explicit definitions everything in the so-called Constitution is open to interpretation.