[so_real]

Simple logic ... if Rawle's opinion was the "normal", the common understanding of the term in question, as stated in your excerpt ... there would have been no need for a 14th Amendment whatsoever. And, yet, there it is. If I recall correctly, Rawle even acknowledged another definition for natural born citizen existed at the time of his prominence. (Trust but verify, I'll have to try and dig that up.) Claiming that his was the generally excepted definition flies in the face of the necessity for the 14th Amendment.

[SoJoCo]

Simple logic ... if Rawle's opinion was the "normal", the common understanding of the term in question, as stated in your excerpt ... there would have been no need for a 14th Amendment whatsoever.

Well yes there would. The 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision which stated that blacks, free or slave, were not and never could be citizens of the U.S. And there were other clauses in the amendment dealing with due process, equal protection, and which penalized the Southern leaders for their role in the rebellion.

If I recall correctly, Rawle even acknowledged another definition for natural born citizen existed at the time of his prominence. (Trust but verify, I'll have to try and dig that up.)

I'd appreciate it if you could.