None of those men [Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and every other Framer who was born in America]were natural born citizens, as the country didn't exist at the time of their birth.
Obviously, YOU don't understand plain English.
It's not hard. Except, of course, for someone who is either a tone-deaf birther, bent on conforming history to his personal wishes, or a complete idiot.
The Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution didn't throw us into a state of nature with no laws. The laws we had generally continued in force. And membership in our American political society continued unabated.
Prior to these events, this was generally called "subjecthood." And members of our political society were called "subjects."
Those who were born members of our political society were called "natural born subjects."
Upon these events, we changed the term "subject" to "citizen." Previously, the term "citizen" had been used mainly to refer to persons who were members of the society of a particular CITY. That in fact is where the term CITIZEN derives from.
But we weren't thrown back in to a state of nature. Those who had been born members of our American political society (which at the time had consisted of Colonies) CONTINUED as members of those societies.
So when we changed the term "subject" to the term "citizen," and (for example), the Colony of New York to the State of New York, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who had previously been a "natural born subject of the Colony of New York" became, instantly, a "natural born citizen of the State of New York."
This was the clear doctrine of the Founding Fathers, as espoused clearly by Father of the Constitution James Madison, and it is agreed on, as far as I am aware, by every significant authority in history.
Are you incapable of reading? Or is it simply understanding that you're incapable of? Or is it simply an utter, jackass determination to twist our history and law to your personal preference?
I'm going to try again. Read slowly.
"I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor."
- James Madison, FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
So here Madison says exactly what I just stated: Our political society continued unabated. We merely separated each State from the King. The allegiance to the King was dissolved. The allegiance to the local political society, the Colony that became a State, continued uninterrupted. And every person who had previously been born a member of that AMERICAN political society (previously called a "colony") CONTINUED as a natural-born member of that American political society, which was now called a "State."
Further as to whether George Washington and other American-born citizens were "natural born citizens" or not, and as to why the "grandfather clause" was passed, here are explanations by legal and historical experts throughout history:
“It [the grandfather clause] was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) 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….” United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)
Joseph Story was one of our Supreme Court Justices, and one of our nation's few most prominent experts on the Constitution and our laws.
“The exception as to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was justly due to those men who had united themselves with the fate of the new nation, and rendered eminent services in achieving its independence ; and is, necessarily, of limited continuance.” James Bayard, A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 96 (1833)
Bayard's target="_blank">work was read by Chief Justice John Marshall, by Joseph Story, by Chancellor James Kent, "and other distinguished jurists," not one of whom lodged any objection. Only one person (Chief Justice John Marshall) objected to any point in the book, a statement regarding construction of military and post roads.
Chief Justice Marshall added, "With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just." “Why was this exception then made ? From gratitude to those distinguished foreigners who had taken part with us during the Revolution.” John Seely Hart, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 71 (1860)
“The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1866) George Bancroft was a famous historian and statesman who served as Secretary of the Navy, and established the US Naval Academy at Annapolis.
“The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1877)
“The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1906)
Townsend was a US Representative.
All of these distinguished voices, including Father of the Constitution James Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall, legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent, and others, say you're completely full of crap.
And in my opinion: Anyone who had half a brain would at this point stop making himself look like a fool. Of course, that usually doesn't include birthers, who are known for pushing the same baseless points no matter how stupid it makes them look.
Truth is simple. Lies are complex.