Replies

So, the Supreme Court at that time also stated there was no need to be on any land that was part of the United States, and in effect, implied that it only took one parent, the father, being a US Citizen at birth to convey the status of "Natural Born" to this new US Citizen.

Nope -- it doesn't say that because if the father was a citizen then so was the mother. It was citizenship by marriage for the wife.

Furthermore the 1790 Act was replaced by the 1795 Act. The exemption re natural born citizenship was only for the "period of the adoption of the Constitution" per Article II which ended with the 1795 Act.

were declared to be citizens also.

"citizens" -- not "natural born citizens".

Read more carefully.

Furthermore the 1790 Act was replaced by the 1795 Act. The exemption re natural born citizenship was only for the "period of the adoption of the Constitution" per Article II which ended with the 1795 Act.

So then, pray tell, would the Supreme Court in 1874 mention it in a ruling as being applicable to being "Natural Born"?

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
[n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

"citizens" -- not "natural born citizens".

Read more carefully.

Actually, I think it is you that needs to read more carefully.

That paragraph, and the sections I have bolded, makes it perfectly clear that in the minds of the Supreme Court, in 1874, that " In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. "

That last provision is dealing specifically with "Natural Born" citizens, not just citizens, and just because they didn't carry through to the next sentence that references that last provision, doesn't mean they weren't talking about "Natural Born".

They specifically state it (the provision concerning "Natural Born" was extended to include the extra provisions that they then stated.