I will begin and end by applying some common sense to that sentence. I do not believe that there existed any universal understanding of term "natural born citizen" at the time of our founding. I doubt that there were 100 people alive at that time who even thought about the meaning of that term at that time.
When our Constitution was debated and drafted, there was great doubt about whether we should even amend the Articles of Confederation. There were huge differences in this country concerning issues such ass slavery and the need for a strong or weak central government. If we were to adopt a Constitution and entrust a federal government with enhanced powers, how were we going to protect small states from being abused by larger states. How should powers be separated within a central government? How should a central government be financed?
These were huge issues. Our nation debated all of thee big issues, but no one had time or energy to talk about the meaning to be given "natural born citizen." It just wasn't considered important. They drafted a term that would serve to prevent some stranger to wander over and become president of the United States, but there weren't more than a handful of people who had ever heard of a dead Swiss philosopher named Vattel.
We all understand the reason for age requirement (35). We all understand the reason for the residency requirement. We wanted our presidents to be someone who had clearly identified himself as American by birth and by personal background. And, we have never elected anyone who wasn't in every real sense of the word an American. I think that the natural construction - born an American citizen - is wholly adequate for the purpose of the provision. Everything else is just baloney.
But, that is just my view. If you wish to imagine that the entire country was obsessed with Vattel and his European views of citizenship, then you have that right. I think that view is crazy. I think that the vast majority of people at the time of the founding had never heard of Vattel or of any of his strange theories.
But, there is a requirement that each of our presidents be a "natural born citizen." So, as voters I think we need to apply that standard to our choices when voting.
And, that's what I do.
Ted’ll NEVER be president, so this is a moot point!
You are completely off base here. Unlike Americans at present the Americans that founded our Nation were passionate about these issue and their letters and speeches have been retained. I don’t know how you can even say the things you do when there is so much proof that the issue was hotly debated. Just think about why only the Presidency requires NBC status, why add another state of citizenship if the distinction had no meaning to the Founders? We have records that explain exactly why they restricted the office of the Presidency.
George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:
[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
As Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declared: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ….” (Italics added) A loophole for themselves, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote 46 years later, was created “out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.”
This from the same man who in the very next paragraph of his famous “Commentaries on the Constitution,” goes on to say that the need to exclude the foreign-born was so obvious as to be unchallenged by any “sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”
When someone fights so hard not to believe the evidence of history or not to apply logic to understand its lessons I can only believe there is a choice involved.
Well, you're wrong.
It was defined then, the same definition a hundred years later, taught in schools in the 60s, defined in US citizenship materials.
Nobody has changed it.
The framers didn't define baby Jesus either, but I'm sure you know what that means.