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.
The 1795 bill did not change the definition of Natural Born citizen that was restated in the 1790 bill. The language in the 1790 bill reflected the founders understanding at the time of the drafting of the constitution that children of citizens born abroad would be included within the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen.
The fact that it was not repeated in the 1795 legislation did not redefine their status as Natural born citizens. It merely clarified the residency requirement.
If you believe that Washington did not intend at the time of the drafting of the constitution that children of citizens born abroad would have the same Natural Born Citizen status as children born in the states, then he would not have signed the 1790 legislation.
The definition of Natural Born Citizens did not change in the 1785 legislation it was simply not restated.
Again, since you seem to know more about this tan Mark Levin or George Washington I assumed you must have completed law school.
What are your credentials as compared towel Levin or even Ted Cruz?
Btw is this a deal breaker for you?
Are you so invested in your interpretation of NBC that if the choice were between Chris Christie and Ted Cruz in a primary that you would be compelled to vote for Christie or sit out the primary?