I believe we are in violent agreement. I was trying to point that the original act did not ever ‘define’ nbC. It tried to grant legal rights to those not true nbCs with the legal status of nbC. And that was for only one purpose - to allow a certain class of non-nbC to be TREATED as nbC for purposes of allowing them to be President.
The Senates SR 511 contains a direct lie concerning the act when it says that nbC was ‘defined’ by the act.
Lets repeat that - the US Senate - almost in total - lied to the American people in SR 511. Of that - there is no doubt.
Because of this FandF will unfold quickly and before the full election cycle in 2012. The liars who signed and voted for SR511 and ignored their duty are looking for cover and FandF gives it to them in a neat package to avoid their failing in defending the Constitution.
The 1790 Naturalization Act exposes the fundamental flaw in the English common law argument embraced by Obots and apologists. English common law already recognized as natural born subjects those children who were born OUTSIDE of the King’s dominions as long as they were born to fathers who were natural born subjects. If the common law prevailed, there was no need to insert the birth abroad part into the naturalization act. If it were understood that simple birth on U.S. soil was sufficient to be a natural-born citizen, then it would have also been understood that birth abroad to a citizen father was also sufficient to this purpose. The fact is that the Constitution only recognized as citizens of those born in the united States to “ourselves and our posterity” ... which is why the Minor decision says there was no doubt about children born in the country to citizen parents. These alone were the natural-born citizens. For any other citizenship there was doubt, which can be shown by the revision of the Naturalization Act in removing the natural-born language.