[rxsid]

You've been trying to make the argument that the Constitution referred to or alluded to the term Naturalization. Clearly, it did not since the federal naturalization laws didn't happen until 1790, and since there were only two types of citizen's mentioned in the Constitution...only "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" the question remains (which you've yet to answer):

How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "Governed" by Great Britain? Any other ideas?

[Lurking Libertarian]

How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "Governed" by Great Britain? Any other ideas?

A "Natural Born Citizen" means someone who is a citizen by birth as opposed to by naturalization. Period.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

One of the problems with this argument is that there seems to be this belief that the Constitution itself is legislation. It’s not. It’s the framework that legislation has to fall into.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to Naturalize citizens, but it did not say how. The 1790 Act is the how.

Similarly the Constitution states that one must meet certain requirements to be eligible for the Presidency. But it doesn’t say “how” that is to be done. And, frankly, there really isn’t a mechanism for the “how.”

The best bet is to stop this angels balancing on the head of a pin stuff and get either the states or Congress to pass a bill explaining how this is done.

No one seems terribly interested in doing this though.