It has been acknowledged that the term 'natural born' was dropped in the 1795 law. But, tell me, what is the difference between 'natural born' and 'born...citizens'? My view, based on the dictionary definition of 'natural born' ('having a quality or status from birth') is that there is no difference.
To clarify, I cite the 1790 statute to refute the 'original intent' argument, as that 'natural born citizens' statute was written by a Congress that included FFs and signed by Washington (that guy on the dollar) (well, most of the time - I have a Tedy Bruschi dollar, too).
"P.A. Madison (whoever this is and who cares) has quite rightly shown the War of 1812 was essentially fought over British application of its nefarious claim upon so-called “British” (first and one must assume some SECOND generation ex-colonials, looking at this from the Limey claim) sons in enforced conscription of some 6000 in the naval blockade that triggered the war. It can be thus assumed the issue was considered settled with the last act prior to the war and did not need to be repeated in any act subsequent."
Who P.A. Madison is is relevant as he is being repeatedly cited as an expert, yet, we know nothing about him or his credentials, and I have previously illustrated flaws in his arguments on this very thread. Suppose I were to post my analysis on a site and sign my articles 'P.I.Jefferson' and some of the FReepers on this (and other) threads were to cite my site, perhaps even me, would that in and of itself validate my position on the topic? Just because it is on the internet does not make it the truth.
We are debating an idea that is fundamental to Donofrio's case, that there is a class of citizen 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen'. I find this to be a serious - read fatal - flaw in Donofrio's case as there is no basis in Law or in the COTUS to support this argument. People who WANT it to be true have repeated their convoluted arguments ad nauseam, apparently believing that enough repetition will MAKE it true. It won't. When someone shows me I am wrong I will acknowledge it. I have, on this very topic, as my original position was that the question of Obama's citizenship was silly. But until there is some legitimate evidence that I am wrong, and not just the alternation of words that are synonymous, I will maintain that it is a distinction without a difference.
One more point: Since the British considered those 6000 impressed persons to be British subjects, does that mean they could not be considered 'natural born' and thus be ineligible to be President, even if they were born, say, in 1796 in, oh, Philadelphia? Or does that illustrate why the view of any other country as to an individual's citizenship is irrelevant to the US?
“People who WANT it to be true have repeated their convoluted arguments ad nauseam, apparently believing that enough repetition will MAKE it true. It won’t.”
Here, here!
I have a question for those who can see into the minds of the Founders and the framers of the 14th amendment. If they were well aware of the danger to our Republic of children born with split loyalties, why didn’t they exclude them from citizenship at birth? That is to say, why go through the trouble of creating a hidden third class of citizen (citizen from birth but not natural born) when you can simply come out and say, “Hey, we don’t want these people to be president!”