The reasoning is not hard. And the authorities are crystal clear.
The question was what the Founders and Framers and their generation intended by "natural born citizen."
The best legal experts of early America have told us clearly what that means.
Rawle tells us, without mincing any words whatsoever, that if a person is born on US soil to non-citizen parents, that person is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, with all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity:
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
With ALL the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
Tucker and Swift both agree that natural born citizens are those born within a State. No mention at all of parentage.
And yes, in the case of Swift, he speaks for one State only. But what he says is consistent with Rawle and Tucker.
Bayard tells us that it's not necessary for a person to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. Being BORN A CITIZEN is quite enough:
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
Marshall, Story and Kent are all in agreement with Bayard.
In both instances, being born a citizen is enough to make one a natural born citizen.
NOW. If you had a case, you would be able to produce NOT ONE, but SEVERAL of our MAJOR EARLY LEGAL EXPERTS, who would have given the birther "definition" of natural born citizen.
But you can't produce even ONE.
All you and the rest of the birthers can do is produce some quote like Marshall's quoting Vattel on an international law case that doesn't even MENTION the phrase "natural born citizen," which isn't even ABOUT the DEFINITION of citizenship, but is instead about how we treat acknowledged citizens who are currently living in an enemy country - and then claim that THAT bullshit supports your claim.
That's it. It's over. You lost the debate.
And you lost the debate because the FACTS AND THE TRUTH WERE NEVER WITH YOU.
The only time Bayard's claim that "It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country." was true was the period between the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.
If Bayard's claim were true the First Congress would have no need to include this in the 1790 Act.
Surely the Father of the Constitution James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicholas Gilman, William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris, Pierce Butler, and President George Washington knew what they were doing when they passed the 1790 Act.
Maybe they had a big party and all got roaring drunk. In the House, AND in the Senate, and in the White House with President Washington. And maybe someone said, "Hey! I know what. Lissen t' thish. Lesh all pass some stupid-ash bill where we don't know wha' the 'ell we're talkin' 'bout."
How about this: President George Washington, and Father of the Constitution James Madison, and all together 40% of the men who signed the Constitution knew exactly what they were talking about when they passed that Act.
sound familiar? it should, you've had a few variations on this theme. here's one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3038670/posts?page=159#159