Nice supposition. Too bad it's at odds with reality.
"In making his ambiguous proposals Jay seems to have been adapting British law to American conditions. British law had used the term "natural born subject," and sometimes "native," to apply to a person born within the royal domain or nation. However, various laws, including the statutes of 25 Edw. III (1350), 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1676), 7 Anne, c. 5 § 3 (1708), 4 Geo. II, c. 21 (1731), and 13 Geo. III, c. 2 (1773), extended the status of "natural born subject" to the children of British parents born abroad and to the children of British fathers and grandfathers. Whether Jay intended to incorporate such supplementary provisions when he replaced the term "natural born subject" with "natural born citizen" has not been determined."
Your selected quote of material from another blog and whose author is engaging in supposition therein in their writing is mistaken when he wrote that ... “Whether Jay intended to incorporate such supplementary provisions when he replaced the term “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen” has not been determined.” Where did that blog author get that from? Thin air. No one ever suggested that the eligibility clause of the new U.S. Constitution should require one to be a “natural born subject”. It is a wild and deliberate supposition by that blog author that Jay just switched the word subject to citizen. English common law is not the source of the Natural Law term “natural born Citizen”. And John Jay did not suggest to Washington to replace the term “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen” as is suggested by that blog author. Jay never used that “natural born subject” term for eligibility in his July 1787 letter to Washington. Jay was suggesting to Washington to replace what Hamilton was circulating and suggesting, “born a Citizen”, to be made much stronger with being a “natural born citizen”. And as you should know, Jay wrote in his letter why he wanted the term “natural born citizen” in the eligibility clause, that is to be a “strong check” against persons with foreign influence on them at birth from ascending to the office of the Presidency and command of our military forces. So we don’t have to suppose as to what Jay said and why. We can just read his letter to Washington of Jul 1787: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg How is allowing a dual-Citizen at birth and attendant foreign influence at birth a “strong check” against foreign influence. How much foreign citizenship acquired at birth is too much foreign influence to you? I say no foreign influence/citizenship gained by birth status is what Jay desired and Washington agreed to and got Hamilton’s word changed for the presidential eligibility clause.
Keep trying to spin things here, but if you were intellectually honest you would admit that there is no way that John Jay and George Washington would ever have wanted allowed Kamala Harris who is a Citizen of Jamaica from birth and owes homage and allegiance to the Queen of Jamaica/England to become President and Commander in Chief of our military ... via the front door or the back door as VP and awaiting the quick demise of Biden, mentally and physically. The USA was a new constitutional republic and the term “natural born Citizen” was chosen from Natural Law and the natural law treatise writings of Emer de Vattel, not British common law: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html ... and ... https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
