[RegulatorCountry]

Um, if you misspeak, then correct yourself, we are supposed to take the misspeak as your true intent? ... Think about it. The very fact that the 1795 Act removed the misspeak is more relevent than the original wording of 1790 Act.

It's more relevant under subsequent law, but it's not more relevant regarding prior intent, and that intent is what is at question.

Besides, it's not me, who entered The Naturalization Act Of 1790 into play as being relevant to the matter. It was the Senate, back in April of 2008. The Senate interpretation appears to be that Framers' intent is demonstrated by that Act.

I'm working to develop an understanding that indicates the opposite.

So, write a letter, send an e-mail or call to register your disaproval of such a belief in the Senate, if it displeases you. I'm just the messenger here, and am trying to shoot it down.

[MHGinTN]

If ‘prior intent’ was correct, why did the Congress correct the entry with the subsequent 1795 Act? ... You’re arguing that prior intent is always correct regardless of being corrected in subsequent legislation.