Yes, but here's the thing: they were natural-born Americans, but still British subjects/citizens up to the Revolution. In effect, the Revolution was (among other things) about repudiating the British doctrine of perpetual citizenship. It was a transfer of sovereignty from King George III to the American people themselves, under their already well-developed system of local self-government. Finally, this boils down to the question of one's principal loyalty.
The Revolution hit the "reset button" of citizenship. Had it failed, there would have been a whole lot of dead (American-born) British subjects. Our Founders were men with a price on their head. But miraculously, it all worked out. George eventually beat a retreat, and for the first time there was such a thing as United States citizenship.
The loyalty issue was a problem even during the war. There were two camps: the Loyalists (identifying as British subjects/citizens) and the revolutionaries (who of course wanted to separate from the British Crown). Benedict Arnold ended up being an inadvertent Loyalist....
In the main, citizenship entails the idea of loyalty to one's sovereign. We the People are the sovereignty. I wonder whether such an idea can move a BHO....
And that's the problem I have with him in a nutshell.
p.s.: I'm scratching my head, too, over who the Framers might have been "grandfathering in."
Two categories in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6: (1) natural born citizen; (2) or "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
It seems to me that (2) refers to the post-Revolutionary period, when the nation was still organized under the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps many people came over from Europe after the war, and became naturalized United States citizens in the pre-Constitution period? Anyhoot, category (2) is strictly time-delimited: "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
It appears neither category applies to our sitting POTUS.
Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts, TXnMA!
The ones excluded would evidently be those who did not become citizens upon inception, e.g. non-residents temporarily "in" the country and slaves who were seen as property.
Interesting but it still leaves us with their intent - evidently that henceforth all presidents must be natural born citizens.
If I understand that correctly, then a non-resident newborn could not become president. McCain arguably would have been a resident at birth because the U.S. was the legal residency of his parents who were on temporary duty outside the U.S.
I do not venture a guess whether Obama's mother's legal residency changed to Kenya upon her marriage based on the laws at the time.
Thank you so much for all your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!