[Jeff Winston]

Why on earth would you cite this act?

You're kidding, right?

It is clear that they intended such persons to be eligible to the Presidency. So the completely destroys the claim that the Framers intended "natural born citizen" to mean "born on US soil of two citizen parents."

I don't know how you can even keep arguing in the light of that fact.

Except, of course, that continuing to push bull**** is simply what you do.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is clear that they intended such persons to be eligible to the Presidency. So the completely destroys the claim that the Framers intended "natural born citizen" to mean "born on US soil of two citizen parents."

You are either extraordinarily obtuse, or deliberately misleading. The act says "Shall be considered as" it does not say "is."

That is the FIRST point upon which you are absolutely wrong.

The Second point upon which you are absolutely wrong is the intentional omission of the fact that a resident American Father was required to make it work. A foreign Father was an absolute deal killer.

The Third point upon which you are absolutely wrong, is the failure of you to note that those specific words were repealed five years later, as if congress explicitly acknowledged that the earlier act was a mistake.

Three strikes and YOU'RE OUT!