[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Congress cannot make a law that changes the definition of a word or phrase in the constitution as it was construed when it was written.

That begs the question of how it was construed when wrutten. And as much as we may want clear-cut answers, the answer to that question may be "inconsistently."

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

My point was not diminished by your post.

[DiogenesLamp]

That begs the question of how it was construed when wrutten. And as much as we may want clear-cut answers, the answer to that question may be "inconsistently."

One of the theories I have advanced in the past is the idea that the term "natural born citizen" meant different things to different people, but all assumed the other thought it meant the same thing they thought it meant.

But there is evidence that there really was an agreed upon and well understood meaning to the term, and that evidence lies in a Pennsylvania law book that was very famous and extensive for it's time period.

"A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania"

Samuel Roberts (1817)

Rawle's understanding of the term, directly contradicts the findings of the Judges of Pennsylvania's supreme court. Rawle also lost in the Pennsylvania Supreme court regarding his particular claims.

William Rawle is the man most responsible for spreading the modern understanding of the term "natural born citizen."