[Crusher138]

As it has been explained to me by a conservative history professor, while the initial intent may have been different, subsequent court decisions have defined “natural born citizen” as to mean an American citizen at the time of birth. In other words, not naturalized later.

[BuckeyeTexan]

As it has been explained to me by a conservative history professor, while the initial intent may have been different, subsequent court decisions have defined “natural born citizen” as to mean an American citizen at the time of birth. 

That would be incorrect. NBC remains, to this day, distinctly undefined by the courts. Even the State Department is not clear on the definition.

According to the Foreign Affairs manual published by the U.S. Department of State, statutory citizenship (i.e. granted by U.S. statute at birth) may or may not be equivalent to natural-born citizenship under the U.S. Constitution.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

(...)

d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

[Nero Germanicus]

The following excerpt is from George Bancroft’s “History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America.” published in 1882.

George Bancroft (October 3, 1800 – January 17, 1891) was an American historian and statesman who was prominent in promoting secondary education both in his home state and at the national level. During his tenure as U.S. Secretary of the Navy, he established the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1845. He was a senior American diplomat in Europe. Among his best-known writings is the magisterial series, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent.

In 2 Bancroft’s History of the Formation of the Constitution... 192, reference is made to the fourth clause of the 1st section of article II. In the Constitutional Convention, says Mr. Bancroft:

“One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last decided. On the twenty-second of August, the Committee of Detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion, and for the first time required only that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. On the fourth of September, the Committee of States, who were charged with all unfinished business, limited the years of residence to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but, as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who shall be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President.” (Corroboration for the statements of Bancroft are to be found in Vol. 5 of Johathan Elliott’s “Madison Papers,” page 462, 507, 512 and 521, and in Vol. 3 of Henry D. Gilpin’s “Madison Papers” pages 1398 , 1437 and 1516)

[DiogenesLamp]

As it has been explained to me by a conservative history professor, while the initial intent may have been different, subsequent court decisions have defined “natural born citizen” as to mean an American citizen at the time of birth. In other words, not naturalized later.

And this is correct. The courts effectively changed the law and ignored original intent, just as the courts are wont to do.