I'm familiar with the Naturalization acts of 1790 and 1795. What I was wanting was a source for that comment:
that had been mistakenly included by the clerk who transcribed it for the First US Congress according to James Madison's own words.
I don't see anything at all in your link that gives me a confirmation of that bit of information.
Thanks for pointing that out. The intent of the framers seems obvious to me so I didn’t pick up on your finer point.
This starts on page 334 of the linked to .pdf document.
Moreover, Parliaments expansion of the definition of natural born subject in the eighteenth century sets no precedent with respect to the American provision. In comparison to the American Constitution, the English Constitution is unwritten.118 By the late seventeenth century, Englands Constitution consisted of whatever Parliament declared as law; Parliament had sovereign and uncontrolable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws.119 As such, it could change and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom and of parliaments themselves.120 Parliament certainly had the power to extend natural born status to those who otherwise would have been aliens. The relationship between Congress and the American Constitution is quite different. According to the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 121 to allow Congress the same latitude as Parliament would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbid[d]en, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits.122 Therefore, Congress cannot alter who is eligible to run for President by statute. Such a dramatic change requires a constitutional amendment.123 Unsurprisingly, no evidence suggests Congress intended to expand the class of persons who could run for President. Moreover, early commentators agreed that the use of natural born in the first naturalization act did not amend Article II. For example, St. George Tuckera professor of law at the College of William and Mary124published his edition of Blackstones Commentaries in 1803, wherein he provided his own notes concerning the differences between English and American law.125 With respect to naturalization and citizenship, he cited all of the American naturalization statutes enacted to that date, including the 1790 Act.126 He then concluded that [p]ersons [] naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural-born citizens, except . . . they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.127 In any event, Congress swiftly repealed the 1790 statute in 1795.128 This time, debate in the House focused on several issues, including whether aliens seeking naturalization should be made to renounce (1) foreign hereditary titles and (2) any claim to persons then held in slavery.129 The House voted yea on the first question and nay on the second.130 On January 2, 1795, the bill was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens: It was only granted to them to admit aliens.132 The following Monday, January 5, 1795, Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization, containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.133 Madison salvaged the Old Law provision that granted naturalization rights to children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase natural born was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new statute provided in pertinent part that the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.136 The law established that the alien child was only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137
It will take me a little longer to find the links to the notes of the First and Third Congresses that makes the specific statement of the error of the transcription clerk that included the Natural Born phrase.