Why? "Natural born citizen" has not been clarified by the actual Constitution.
It didn't need clarification. The Founders knew what it meant.
Do you or do you not understand that the founders knew what it meant?
And we can ascertain that from the language which our founders were familiar with, which was the information already provided from Vattel and John Jay.
What did you not understand about that info?
It was known what natural born meant.
:naughty
No, you are the one who is wrong here.
The Congressional Research Service does not dictate what is and isn't. The Supreme Court would.
All you provided was an opinion, an opinion that falls short of actual reliable research into the topic.
And coming as it does from the time period makes is suspect to begin with.
It is nothing more than an opinion concocted to present an invalid take on the actual law.
And it is wrong, as the weight of legal and historical authority is clearly on the side or parents needing to be being citizens, being born on the soil of the Country and owing no allegiances to a foreign country.
Now if you like you may use that report and it's cites and we can debate. And I can show you each step of the way were it is wrong.
If you like we can start with them saying that English Common law is the source that the Courts turn to to determine the meaning.
That is inaccurate. It is; "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,"
That nomenclature with which our framers were familiar with can be ascertain by the previously provided information on Vattel and John Jay.
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett ()
Argued: February 9, 1875
Decided: March 29, 1875
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162