[Hugin]

Maybe not you, but others have tried to cite it as a precedent, and ignore the second half of the paragraph.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Maybe not you, but others have tried to cite it as a precedent, and ignore the second half of the paragraph.

No, I have never cited it as precedent, but it the closest thing that I know of that there is to give definition to the term.

Bills of Attainder are not defined, ex post facto is not defined, well regulated as well as we the people is not defined either.

But as H v M pointed out, we must go back and study the nomenclature, or semantics of the words that were used at the time.

NBC had a very specific meaning, one that was to eliminate all possible loyalties of a POTUS having bias toward any other then America.

I have studied this intensely, for a long time now, it, IMO, is the INTENT of the Founding Fathers.

[GregNH]

I think what most people try to do when siting MvH is to point out what was known as common knowledge at the time, hence no need for a precedent. A law is man made and man can't can't change nature that is why "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." So when looking beyond that we need to look at law and once your citizenship is determined by a "law" you are not a citizen by nature, or natural born citizen.