If the Founders had meant the phrase *natural-born* to include everything else, they would have SAID everything else.
Thinking they intended for every legislative Act to list everything NOT included is ludicrous.
They operated on the legal concept known as the Rule of Exclusion, and this Rule is precisely WHY they enumerated powers.
§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
-----
You try to take the particulars of the Founding generation and STRETCH them all the way to today.
You BYPASS the fact all the 'court decisions' are founded on the totally FALSE claim that the Wong Kim Ark court proclaimed him a natural-born citizen when that is NOT the case.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Would you care to explain HOW the Wong Kim Ark court determined he was a *natural-born* citizen when that wasn't even the question they'd been asked?
If you understand, first, that there are ONLY 2 forms of Citizenship, Natural Born and Naturalized -—
Then the language makes sense.
MUCH more sense under my interpretation, which is the ACCEPTED legal interpretation by the vast majority of legal minds, scholars and historians.
In other words, you are contorting yourself with quotes and rulings and facts which really miss the point.
So they said NATURAL BORN because they did not want a NATURLIZED Citizen to become President, and it is you birthers who want to create something out of thin air that just is not there.
I do not “bite” on your bait, since what you post does not prove your point, or disprove my point.
That's easy. Two reasons:
1. You didn't get my 'A' and 'B' example in the other thread, so I'll make it more concrete. Let's say the question is whether someone lives in Texas. If I spend hundreds of words demonstrating that they live in Houston, I'll still end by saying "and therefore she lives in Texas" because that was the question asked. It doesn't negate the fact that my whole proof of that was based on their living in Houston; similarly, the fact that the court concluded by saying that WKA was a citizen doesn't negate the fact that there whole reasoning was based on demonstrating that he was a natural-born citizen...
2. ...a fact the dissenting judges recognized. They wrote, "it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural-born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances." They wouldn't say that in the dissent unless they recognized that in fact that was what the decision meant.