This is one STUPID excuse for an argument from you.
From your own quote:
“(2.) The constitution requires that the President shall be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a NATIVE CITIZEN of the United States...”
So we see exactly what I cited him for - an equivalence between being a natural born citizen and being a native citizen, since he uses them interchangeably. There is no sequential argument, but direct equivalence:
“The constitution requires that the President shall be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution...As the President is required to be a NATIVE CITIZEN of the United States...”
He goes on to say “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot ; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany...” - which is true, and does not in any way contradict what I wrote.
“Please explain how Kent could have defined native as an artificial class of persons created by law...”
What he wrote makes it clear to anyone who isn’t a dufus, so I’ll break it apart to help you see:
“Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of [husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant].
To these may be added, an examination of certain [artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations].
There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives...”
So he considers families. Then he considers CORPORATIONS, which ARE “artificial persons created by law”. You see, a native is NOT an artificial person, nor created by law, and he specifically says he is talking about corporations.
He then mentions a two fold division: “aliens and natives”.
He then repeats his definition of natives, which are also natural born: “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives;”
Let me repeat it: “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” and he also wrote, “”As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States”.
Do you get it now? Natives = natural born citizens = eligible for the Presidency.
For any other readers, I hope you can now understand why I say that one cannot be a reader and a birther both - for to be able to read is to be able to understand what is written, and birthers can only exist by refusing to understand what is plainly written.
You better look at post 753. I spell it out pretty clearly for the slow leaks.
ONCE AGAIN YOU(MR ROGERS) EDITS & PARSES MY POSTS AS WELL KENT'S QUOTES FROM THEIR ORIGINAL FORM IN ORDER TO OBSFUCATE THE THE TRUTH.
...ambitious foreigners cannot ; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome… (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Part II: Of the Government and the Jurisprudence of the United States, 1826)
So Mr Rogers, what part of this:
...as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added,...a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives
Do you not understand?... Kent clearly states here that natural does not equate to native as birth was not a requirement to being a native at the signing of the constitution:
(1.) Natives . . . If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.
So, when defining original intent, birth was NOT a requisite for being classified as a Native.
As Morse stated in 1904:
“the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite...If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”;”
So while certain individuals MAY have used native in place of natural, one must look to which definition of native they were using, they are not interchangeable and are very distinct as Kent has shown. The Indians were all native-born, yet they were not all citizens. Get the Picture?