Right. And I have never said anything different.
Congress in 1790 deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Should we conclude that in 1795 Congress was no less deliberate when that distinction was removed?
That is why I say that it may well be that the 1795 Congress intended to remove Presidential eligibility from such persons. Because there was, in fact, a change in the wording.
But I simply don't believe that the successive Congresses throughout US history intended the same thing. Since the general understanding of everybody was that citizen at birth = natural born citizen, I believe that those Congresses, starting with the 1802 one, were passing laws that they believed established Presidential eligibility for children born abroad to US citizens.
The legal experts in the 1830s obviously agreed with me. Bayard was crystal clear that such persons were eligible, and a bunch of legal experts including Marshall, Story and Kent, and others, read his book and said he was good to go.
You obviously don't agree with this, and to that extent you seem to disagree with the most prominent giants of the legal world of the early United States. I don't. I agree with them. And so do the great majority of legal scholars of today.
Bayard offers an opinion contrary to law. His opinion on this point is discredited.
A point which is more notable by the absence of PRIOR authorities which agree with you, and especially those who were in a better position to know what is the truth.
John Marshall and Bushrod Washington were BOTH delegates to the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Marshall especially worked with Madison to secure ratification of the constitution. They cite VATTEL on citizenship.
You obviously don't agree with this, and to that extent you seem to disagree with the most prominent giants of the legal world of the early United States.
And here you keep asserting these book-writing Lawyers have more significance than do ACTUAL Authorities who had first hand knowledge regarding the Deliberations. People such as John Jay, John Marshall, Bushrod Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, etc.
Once again, the names of REAL authorities never seem to make your list. Even despite your habit of twisting anything you're alleged authorities, Rawle, Story and Kent, have ever said as being on YOUR side, they were still NOT DELEGATES, they were NOT LEGISLATORS, so at best, they got their information SECOND HAND.
Given the circle jerk of British Trained lawyers it's not surprising that some people were misinformed.