>>...Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause...<<
LOL! If the writers of the 14th had wanted to say Natural-Born-Citizen, they could have done so. The example in Article-II existed and was available for plagiarizing. They chose not to and stated quite clearly, “Citizen”.
Nope, the founders had a commonly held definition for NBC and that was born in a country to two citizen parents. They used that term to give additional integrity to the qualifications for President. That was their clear, unarguable intent. That subsequent black-robed scoundrels and politi-sluts have endeavored to twist and pervert the founders intentions does not change their original intent. It simply means that the those black-robed scoundrels and politi-sluts disregarded, disrespected and held no value in the founders original intent. The country is worse off because of it.
So, legalistically you are right. Revel in the smugness of your argument if you like. But you might as well wallow in a pig-sty for all the good it does you.
“Nope, the founders had a commonly held definition for NBC and that was born in a country to two citizen parents.”
No. They used natural born subject and natural born citizen interchangeably for a number of years.
“If the writers of the 14th had wanted to say Natural-Born-Citizen, they could have done so.”
Had they done so, there would have been no improvement in understanding. By rephrasing it as they did, they put any attempt by a court to repeat Dred Scott out of reach. In essence, by passing the 14th, they gutted the Dred Scott decision - which used Vattel’s idea instead of the language of the Constitution.