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"...At the time of the adoption of this Constitution only nine (9) of the fifty-five (55) delegates who actually attended the 1786-1787 Federal Convention in Philadelphia to draw up the Constitution had been born beyond the shores of the Republic. So if "natural born" meant the same thing to the framers of the Constitution as did being born in this country, why the "or"? Clearly, "natural born" was not only seen by these gentlemen as being different than a U.S. citizen, but something superior to just being a U.S. citizen. To me, in my studies on this subject, that difference can be nothing but having both parents U.S. citizens at the time of birth. ex animo davidfarrar
Because at the time most of the delegates were born the country didn't exist?
Clearly, "natural born" was not only seen by these gentlemen as being different than a U.S. citizen, but something superior to just being a U.S. citizen.
Natural born is seen as superior as naturalized. The founders did believe that the president should have a birth tie to the country, and not just anyone who moved here at a later point in life and who became a citizen should be allowed to hold the highest office. But what the founders did not do is define 'natural born' as somehow higher than the run-of-the-mill person born in the U.S. The Constitution does not make that distinction. Anywhere. It clearly divides citizenship into two classes; natural born and naturalized. If you're not one then you're the other.