Yes, it becomes clear that a BUNCH OF LAWYERS, who had nothing to do with Writing the US Constitution have badly distorted what was the correct understanding of the founder's intent, because they insisted on substituting English Common law principles into a document which blatantly and pointedly rebuked the very basis of such law. Monarchical authority and feudal custom.
You just keep reading excerpts from the echo chamber of disconnected Lawyers.
Your claim that “natural born citizen” requires both being born on US soil, and having citizen parents when you’re born, is absolute, total, complete BS.
So you've said from the beginning, yet you keep getting surprised by evidence to the contrary.
And there’s no real ambiguity about that in history.
Why absolutely! The British Trained lawyers are all very adamant in their misunderstanding of the US Constitution. It's a shame that none of them can claim to actually KNOW what it means, and those who can don't seem to be among your supporters.
There are a few people who actually did maintain otherwise - a VERY, VERY few - but most of those really didn’t know what they were talking about, and the extremely few who did were completely overruled by far more authoritative figures.
Franklin, Washington, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, Wilson, Ingersoll, Pickney, Armstrong were involved in the Deliberations. How many delegates do YOU have on your list of cites? I haven't even mentioned John Jay, Daniel Webster, Thomas Otis, Dr. David Ramsey, and others as well.
YOU are the one that has precious little support for your stupid English Common Law theory. Under English Common Law, the ducking stool, drawing and quartering, and burning were acceptable punishments, as was the "Corruption of Blood". All were explicitly rejected by the US Constitution.
Here, let me show you.
Amendment 8.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Article 3, section 3.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
As Madison had said:
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
None of whom as far as I'm aware, EXCEPT for Ramsay (who was voted down 36 to 1 by a group that included 6 Framers of the Constitution), EVER stated that it took birth on US soil plus US citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
EVER.
Franklin and Washington hung out with William Rawle, who absolutely contradicts you. Washington tried to make him Attorney General of the United States.
Madison says there are two criteria for the kind of allegiance that produces citizenship, but in general, place of birth is "the most certain" and is "WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES."
He also led the b****-slap of Ramsay's citizenship claims.
Monroe, as far as anybody can tell, had nothing to say on the matter, except that James McClure was a United States citizen, and the reason his administration gave for that was that he was born in Charleston, South Carolina.
NOT that he was born in Charleston, South Carolina of a US citizen parent. But simply that he was born in South Carolina, once again flatly contradicting your BS claim.
Hamilton told us that when we wanted to understand the terms that were written in the Constitution (such as "natural born,") we should look to the English common law. And by the common law, any child born in the country was "natural born," as long as his parents were in the country legally, whether his parents were aliens or not.
John Jay said nothing except that the command-in-chief should not be given to anyone except a natural BORN citizen, emphasizing BORN.
Sorry, but you're full of crap, and you've been called on it.
You know, this is about the most idiotic thing I've heard.
You and your ilk have presented literally dozens of fallacious arguments, cherry-pickings, and quote-twistings, and darn littler GENUINE "evidence to the contrary."
When it comes to early America, against the 30 or so GENUINE quotes that I've produced that show what the founding generation believed a natural born citizen was, and what was required for Presidential eligibility, I can think of only 3 bits of LEGITIMATE "evidence to the contrary" that you've ever produced.
David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1 by Madison and a group including 5 other Framers.
Samuel Roberts, an obscure several-counties judge who was completely contradicted by far more widely recognized and higher-level authority such as Rawle and St. George Tucker.
And finally, the pseudonymous writer "Publius" who hesitatingly put forth his opinion that James McClure was not a citizen, admitting that he might well be wrong, and who was flatly contradicted by President Monroe's administration, which declared that McClure was a US citizen solely on the basis of his birth in Charleston.
YOU are the one that has precious little support for your stupid English Common Law theory. Under English Common Law, the ducking stool, drawing and quartering, and burning were acceptable punishments, as was the "Corruption of Blood". All were explicitly rejected by the US Constitution.
The support is only virtually every legal expert or historical authority who has ever spoken on the topic in all of history, including friends of the Framers, legal experts writing on what the Constitution meant, and judges who have analyzed the law and rendered opinions on the meaning of the term.
As for the rest of it, wow. Congratulations. You've shown that we rejected the ducking stool, drawing and quartering, and the "Corruption of Blood."