Replies

No it didn’t, to my knowledge. It may have used the term “native born,” but it didn’t say that native borns weren’t natural borns. And why would it, as that wasn’t at issue?

Have you actually read the decision?

I don’t see why my flat denial is any more deficient than your flat assertion.

Perhaps because I have something to back up my assertion other than my opinion?

Part of the decision in MvH given by the chief justice of SCOTUS.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar See references in post 69 and a book belonging to John Adams here