And I've never claimed it did; what I have said is that US Statutes made that position and that because the Constitution itself is silent on the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is, then the Statutes passed by the same men who wrote the Constitution is a good guide for what they considered a Natural Born Citizen.
However, I provide you the meaning and intent behind the NBC clause above.
Not from the Constitution, nor from a good number of the writers of the Constitution.
Perhaps we can agree on a few things:
1. The Constitution itself does not define what a Natural Born Citizen is; it is silent on the matter.
2. Vattel's Law of Nations was a significant influence in the crafting of the US Constitution.
3. The Statutes passed by the first few Congresses are an explicit record of what the Founders intended as the Statutes are an implementation of the Constitution.
You asked me where it defines in the Constitution the NBC clause? Turn around is fair play by asking you the same form of question as to where does it state in the US Constitution where a person born overseas is a natural born citizen...that you believe is true?
what I have said is that US Statutes made that position and that because the Constitution itself is silent on the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen
That law was repeal, expunged, and unconstitutional because it is in error. Yes the Constitution doesn't say however, the meaning and intent of the Founders is the De Vattel's definition behind the NBC clause.
the Statutes passed by the same men who wrote the Constitution is a good guide for what they considered a Natural Born Citizen.
Not so, Congress made an error and corrected it and I've told you why.
2. Vattel's Law of Nations was a significant influence in the crafting of the US Constitution.
The overwhelming evidence say de Vattel's definition is the meaning and intent for the natural born citizen clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
3. The Statutes passed by the first few Congresses are an explicit record of what the Founders intended as the Statutes are an implementation of the Constitution.
The act passed in 1790 does not circumvent the adopted 1787 Constitution as I have said in many words. If that was true as you say, they would not have repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790 in 5 years and not have removed the words natural born citizens, but they did.