Your claim - and Rawle’s - are contradicted by the Naturalization Act of 1790 et. seq., The Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the holdings of the United States and Mexican Claims Commission, Sen. Trumbull (framer of Amend. 14)
Not true. Those Acts never addressed the status of children born on US soil.
The Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Are you referring to Samuel Roberts' personal opinion? As we've seen, that is FAR less authoritative than Rawle's.
the holdings of the United States and Mexican Claims Commission
Again, FAR less authoritative than the US Supreme Court
Sen. Trumbull (framer of Amend. 14)
Who never said it took citizen parents for anyone born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. PERIOD.
Once again, all you have is weak and unauthoritative evidence against the great mass of early authorities, plus the US Supreme Court and virtually every real authority throughout US history.
Like I said earlier, it's a pound of evidence on one side of the scale, and 20 pounds of evidence on the other side. You argue that a pound outweighs 20 pounds, because you like the pound.
But it doesn't.
Have you seen this thread?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2908140/posts
WXRGian compiled some excellent info. Here’s a sm part of it:
“Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles[1] already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.
And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.
How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:
During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]
Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”
Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.[2] Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:
“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]”
Lots more info on the thread too. Thanks, WXRGina.
On a subject as central as citizenship, over the course of 100+ years, you'll be able to find people saying almost anything. But if you're going to cite sources, you have to have the preponderance of them on your side. Here, it's like you're finding a few needles in a haystack and proclaiming it's a needlestack.