Doubtful. Considering that "mothers" are never mentioned, but "fathers" are, in both the 1790 and the 1795 laws, and the texts that are not founding documents but are frequently cited by the proponents of the two-citizen-parents claim also say "fathers" but never "mothers and fathers". And I do not know of a single person that has two fathers. Not even these days. Clearly the plural indicates the singular father of each of multiple children.
Also, throughout our history, that was taught.
Now, that's laughable. You claim that this was taught when women were still not even full citizens and their citizenship was derived either through their father or their husband, but not on their own qualifications? Right.
Just ask anyone who went to school when American history was taught.
And when would that be? I'm pretty sure it was still being taught when I was in school. And we actually had to read stuff, too!
Just because it is not defined in the Constitution is laughable. There are plenty of legal terms in the Constitution that are not defined. “Natural born” is a legal term used at that time. Frozen into the Constitution. Cannot be taken out by any acts of Congress.
And it is not given a legal definition in the Constitution, therefore its dictionary definition is the legal definition. For "natural-born" and any other term that does not have a legal definition provided. Standard jurisprudence. The term first appears in the 1580s and means "having a quality or attribute from birth". It never took on any other meaning until long after the Constitution.
There is a particular Freeper on site who has listed all the Supreme Court decisions that stipulate that natural born refers to two citizen parents.
The claim that "having two citizen parents and being born in the United States certainly makes one a natural-born citizen" but any other set of circumstances precludes it is simply nonsense. That's like taking "beagles are canines" to mean that German Shepherds aren't. That's just a combination of confirmation bias and poor reading skills. If you review those SCOTUS cases you will find that the definitions used in those rulings are inclusive rather than exclusive - Beagles are "certainly" canines and German Shepherds may, in fact, be canines, too!
“You claim that this was taught when women were still not even full citizens and their citizenship was derived either through their father or their husband, but not on their own qualifications?”
“this was taught when”???
Clutch your bleeding heart. Women have always been natural born citizens, same as males. Their citizenship has never depended on their husbands in the matter of natural born citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1790, again, does specify that natural born citizenship does originate with the father, either male or female. That rules out Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Kalama Harris, Nikki Haley.
Subsequent naturalization acts can change the laws of naturalization, but not the legal description of natural born.
Yes, I was taught that and it was long before the term “birther” was trotted out. The original “birthers” were the writers of the Constitution, don’t you agree? Their explanatory writings on the subject state plainly that they only wanted American citizens to be president. They wanted loyalty to the nation. That they had it right is evident in the disloyalty of Barack Obama, who definitely was not a natural born citizen. It is also in the Old Testament requirements — “none but from your brothers shall rule over you” or words to that effect.
Not to say, though, that naturalized citizens are not loyal. I have known some who certainly were.