Bayard’s claim that “it is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’” is unsubstantiated and contradicted by law.
The Congress of 1790, many members of which were Framers, enacted law declaring children born out of country to citizens to be in law “natural born citizens”.
Congress in 1795 enacted law declaring children born out of country to citizens to be in law “citizens”.
The challenge was, that naturalized citizens are eligible. Bayard does not make this claim.
Bayard’s error is the claim that it is “not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’”. He cites no law which supports this claim, a claim which in fact is contradicted by law: the citizenship of children born outside the United States to citizen parents has always depended upon operation of law, only during 1790-1795 were such children declared to be in law “natural born citizen”.
(edit for clarity)
The challenge was, support the claim that naturalized citizens are eligible. Bayard does not make this claim.
Bayard’s claim that “it is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’” is unsubstantiated and contradicted by law.
The Congress of 1790, many members of which were Framers, enacted law declaring children born out of country to citizens to be in law “natural born citizens”.
Congress in 1795 enacted law declaring children born out of country to citizens to be in law “citizens”.
Bayard’s error is the claim that it is “not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’”. He cites no law which supports this claim, a claim which in fact is contradicted by law: the citizenship of children born outside the United States to citizen parents has always depended upon operation of law, only during 1790-1795 were such children declared to be in law “natural born citizen”, since that time such children have been declared to be in law “citizen”. Bayard’s claim is opposed by law.
What law?
You can't point to any such law. It doesn't exist.
What you mean is: "Bayard's claim... is unsubstantiated and contradicted by my opinion. And that of a few other geniuses on the internet."
Because there's no law that contradicts Bayard / Marshall / Story / Kent.
The challenge was, that naturalized citizens are eligible. Bayard does not make this claim.
Now you're just trying to squirm your way out. It won't work.
The entire discussion was about whether people born US citizens abroad (like Ted Cruz) are natural born citizens.
Bayard says clearly and unequivocally that they are. Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, and Chancellor James Kent all agree.
Bayard’s error is the claim that it is “not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’”. He cites no law which supports this claim, a claim which in fact is contradicted by law: the citizenship of children born outside the United States to citizen parents has always depended upon operation of law, only during 1790-1795 were such children declared to be in law “natural born citizen”.
Obviously, the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and Chancellor James Kent followed the same line of reasoning I referred to above, or one extremely similar. Because all of these giants of American Constitutional law agree that Bayard is NOT in error.
Ah, but you're a birther. So that automatically makes you a genius of law smarter and more authoritative than Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Story, and Chancellor Kent - combined.