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.
With all due respect,
The country existed, it was the Republic that was new. But I get your drift. But you are quite wrong. Up until that time (the adoption of the Constitution), all of the 55 “framers” were British subjects, with 46 being born in the ‘colonies’. At that time, the term “naturalized” would have had no meaning to the framers. If you were alive and living in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted by the thirteen colonies, you were a U.S. citizen. If both of your parents were alive and living in this country, you were a “natural born” citizen.
This isn’t rocket science. I daresay it just may be easy enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to grasp this meaning, even if you cannot.
ex animo
davidfarrar