Thats total BS.
It was published by George Collins in The American Law Review (1866-1906); Sep/Oct 1884; 18, American Periodicals Series Online pg.831
That is just the FIRST refrence that comes to mind. There ARE others.
So going back all the way to 1884, Americans KNEW what a Natural Born Citizen was. Thanks to Liberals in our schools and writing the text books those definations just didnt’ get passed down in the generations closest to ours. That does NOT mean that it doesn’t exist. Ignorance of the law does NOT protect you if you break that law.
*tink* you have been flicked back to the sandbox.
Speaking of George Collins, his interpretation of 'natural born citizen' was wrong. No less a body than the U.S. Supreme Court said it was wrong.
That's because George Collins was one of the lead attorneys in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Specifically, he was the losing attorney. He argued his definition of 'natural born citizen,' the one you want to argue is correct, and the Supreme Court disagreed.
This is among the reasons why there was no discussion of any supposed 'two-citizen-parent' requirement before the election, and why over two years later, Birthers still can't find any legitimate legal scholars to back them up. Because it's not valid law. Because over a century ago, George Collins tried to make that argument before the Supreme Court, and he lost.