[faucetman]

I think you missed the point/humor

I was referring to the point that in the article, as they always do, point out that the constitution doesn’t define the term “natural born citizen”.

The obvious reason is that as EVERYONE already knows that water is wet, the framers all knew what “natural born citizen” meant. In their minds, at the time, no need to define it. I wish they had.

[Windflier]

I think you missed the point/humor

Those invisible sarc tags throw me off, every time.

[DiogenesLamp]

The obvious reason is that as EVERYONE already knows that water is wet, the framers all knew what “natural born citizen” meant. In their minds, at the time, no need to define it. I wish they had.

You should read what I wrote up above. The word "Citizen" effectively defines itself once you look into where the word originated.

The word is not native to English, and especially not in it's current usage. It's current usage indicates that it was adopted from Switzerland where it was known to mean members of a confederated republic.

In the English of the time period (1770s) the word "Citizen" meant someone who lived in a City.

From "A dictionary of the English language. by Samuel Johnson, 1768."

I have examined several other English dictionaries from that time period. All of them define "Citizen" as members of a city. None of them define it as members of a nation. They also all acknowledge that the word is "French" in origin.