[DiogenesLamp]

And, I just don't think many folks back then thought we should design an eligibility standard that evades simple proof.

No proof required. Legally, the Husband of the marriage is ALWAYS the father. That *IS* a matter of English civil law which we kept.

[Tau Food]

No, you're right. In many of our states, there exist statutes just like that. Usually, the rule is framed in terms of a conclusive presumption that a child born during a marriage is the child of the father. The advent of DNA testing has shown that such statutes can create results that many folks find to be unjust.

Nevertheless, that rule is still the rule in many, many places. But, how can we force the U.S. government to adopt similar rules for purposes of its determinations of citizenship. I don't think they're required to follow state statutes and, even if they were, which state's statutes would prevail. Should NBC status depend upon what state the candidate was born in?

I think there are some holes in that analysis, parts we can't be sure were contemplated or intended back then. ;-)