No it doesn’t. It is just as likely that subsequent Congresses thought the term “natural born” citizen was the mistake.
What we have in 1790 is “original intent?” Conservatives in the judiciary tend to be fond of the concept.
“Infinitely malleable” is hyperbole.
That position is unsupportable by the available facts.
What we have in 1790 is “original intent?”
Oversight in picking the right term.
Conservatives in the judiciary tend to be fond of the concept.
We are fond of the concept, but that is not what applies here. To get the original intent of "natural born citizen" you have to go back to the document which created it. The Declaration of Independence.
The natural law philosophy underpinning that document makes it very clear as to what "natural born citizen" was taken to mean.
“Infinitely malleable” is hyperbole.
Hardly. According to you, every time Congress modifies a naturalization act, they change the meaning of "natural born citizen." You've pointed out your position numerous times regarding Rogers v Bellei.
Given that congress has modified the requirements to be a "citizen" a dozen times since 1787, there is no reason to believe they can't do it as many times as they wish, and in whatever manner suits their whim, therefore "infinitely malleable is a perfectly reasonable descriptive term.
Now a reasonable man would conclude that his theory equating "natural born citizen" to "citizen" is wrong because it results in the absurdity of having an infinitely malleable constitutional term, but an unreasonable man will simply take issue with the term "infinitely malleable." :)