The 1790 provision that the children of Citizens born overseas shall be considered Natual Born Citizens was not an attempt to amend the constitution, but a restatement of the founders intended definition of the term Natural Born Citizen.
To say that Washington and the other drafters of the constitution attempted to amend the constitution by inserting unconstitutional language into a law that was passed before the ink on the parchment had even dried is an insult to the Father of our Country and to the founders who included that restatement of law in that bill.
You did finish law school, didn't you?
You do understand the statutory principles of restatements of law, don't you?
I can read and comprehend at least as well as you. And I do not feel the compulsion to insult people who point out that I have left out a piece of information.
A portion of the 1790 law was specifically to address the problem of children being born to traveling U.S. citizens. There is a lot of information on why that law was written, but I have never read before your post that it was to address that term natural born citizen. Cool, you can link that please. The part of the 1790 Act that addresses the citizenship of those children born out of the U.S., was to make the children of U.S. citizens U.S. citizens as well. Horace Binney wrote on this in 1853, saying in the preface: “The following law paper was written for the satisfaction of some fellow-citizens and friends, one or more of whose children were born in foreign parts, during occasional visits by their parents to Europe. Such children are Aliens, notwithstanding their parents are natural born citizens of the United States.” http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112102633445;view=1up;seq=9
You claim that I implied:
“To say that Washington and the other drafters of the constitution attempted to amend the constitution by inserting unconstitutional language into a law that was passed before the ink on the parchment had even dried is an insult to the Father of our Country and to the founders who included that restatement of law in that bill.”
I did not. I implied nothing at all of the sort. I provided the link to the image of the 1795 bill that replaced the 1790 bill, specifically because the language had been changed and no longer included the term “natural born citizen”. Please be accurate when you “quote” me.