We've been over this a bunch of times already.
It may or may not be that the 1795 Congress intended to revoke the eligibility of children born overseas to the Presidency. But that Act was succeeded by the Naturalization Acts of 1798 and 1802, and eventually one in the mid-1800s. And then more after that. A BUNCH more after that, throughout US history.
I think Chief Justice Marshall, and the other early legal experts as well (Story, Kent, etc.) would tell you that whatever the intention of the 1795 Congress, the intention of ALL succeeding Congresses was that children born US citizens overseas would be equally eligible to the Presidency as those born in the United States.
And yes, there is something to be said for your position. Unlike most birther claims, it's not completely cracked. So you can compliment yourself on that. You're not pushing the totally cracked birther BS that the Founding Fathers restrictively defined "natural born citizen" as "born on US soil to two citizen parents" and it doesn't mean anything else, yada, yada.
Your position (if I understand it correctly) is that even if Congress had the power to declare that children born US citizens overseas are natural-born citizens and eligible to the Presidency (which they clearly did), then they repealed that eligibility in 1795 and failed to ever reinstate it.
And like I say, that point of view is not completely without merit.
But neither Chief Justice John Marshall, nor Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, nor Chancellor James Kent, nor James Bayard agree with you.
That's all.
“I think Chief Justice Marshall, and the other early legal experts as well (Story, Kent, etc.) would tell you that whatever the intention of the 1795 Congress, the intention of ALL succeeding Congresses was that children born US citizens overseas would be equally eligible to the Presidency as those born in the United States.”
The law states otherwise.