No, the point is yours, because you've expressed a particular INTERPRETATION of the law.
Marshall, Story, and Kent - all of whom were among our nation's very most distinguished experts in the law, with careers of Constitutional and legal interpretation spanning for decades, disagreed with your interpretation.
Jeff I would like to get your published references for Marshall, Story, and Kent as to their actual opinions/decisions on the definition of ‘natural born citizen. With due respect to your opinions I believe these men’s actual presentations would help my personal understanding.
Interpretation? Hardly. It is the letter of the law, the 1790 act, and the 1795 act et seq.
Bayard’s claim disagrees with the Framers, Congress, and the law. Continuing to cite it doesn’t make it any more “truthier”.