You KNOW Bayard's writing was not intended for legal purposes , was a historical book for use in 'the education of youths'
You KNOW the 'authorities' you quote to imply they approved of what he said actually only approved of the project itself. {See above link}
AND you KNOW that Bayard was quoting the 1790 Naturalization Act, not giving his legal opinion of the current definition for his time, because it has been brought to your attention by more than one poster.
---------
Yet here you are, hopping from thread to thread, spreading your drek and spouting 'facts' without sources.
No wonder you've become such a laughing stock.
I'm not sure what "legal purposes" you want an Exposition of the Constitution of the United States to serve.
As far as the "education of youths" goes, yes, it was used in our colleges and seminaries, and Bayard was pleased that it was.
The question is whether it was accurate. The Great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and the famous Chancellor James Kent, all of whom were among the absolute top legal authorities in the United States, as well as other distinguished legal experts, all attested that it was.
So once again you're doing what birthers do. You have your pet theory, and when the evidence completely and flatly contradicts it, do you say, "Gee, I might be wrong?" No, of course not. Instead, you try to discredit the evidence, even when it stands on the firm ground of having been approved by the most expert authorities of the early United States.