Like Michael Bay in Pearl Harbor you completely missed the point. Obviously, they didn't find a new "document to discover the neutron. Physics isn't an interpretative activity, so you can conduct experiments and discover the truth. You can't do that in constitutional interpretation. Unless you can find an as yet undiscovered document that decisively proves your hypothesis, you won't have a Copernican revolution in constitutional interpretation.
That's clear enough. Now go ahead and mangle it.
Contemporary writings and statements of the founders demonstrate their intent to a reasonable degree of scientific rigor , and that intent is completely incompatible with Split nationality/divided allegiance.
All of the founders were eligible for British citizenship/subjecthood had they chosen to retain it. They were no strangers to divided loyalties. None of them had been born American citizens. They all knew people of similar backgrounds to their own in whom loyalty to Britain had won out.
Some of their great leaders had been born abroad: John Paul Jones, Lafayette, Pulaski, Kościuszko, Steuben, de Kalb. Not to mention Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, John Witherspoon, James Wilson. Others were the children of those who were born abroad.
It's clear that they didn't want non-citizens or those who weren't citizens from birth to be elected president. It's also clear that they didn't demand that the parents or grandparents of a prospective president be American-born. Did they require that a president's parents be US citizens at the time of the president's birth? I don't think you can maintain that with any degree of certainty.
My point is that there isn't some principle of hostility and mistrust towards those whose parents weren't citizens that comes before the actual words of the Constitution. You can't reduce the Constitution to some principle that you like. You have to go by the actual wording and the understanding of those words, and they don't give you the certainty that you want and believe you have.
That's clear enough. Now go ahead and mangle it.
The documents already discovered are clear enough and Ditto.
All of the founders were eligible for British citizenship/subjecthood had they chosen to retain it. They were no strangers to divided loyalties. None of them had been born American citizens. They all knew people of similar backgrounds to their own in whom loyalty to Britain had won out.
On this you are absolutely right. The Founders Knew very well that they were NOT "Natural Born Citizens" and that is why they included a very specific exemption for themselves.
"...or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution..."
I am astonished you seem unaware of this yet persist in discussing this issue.
Some of their great leaders had been born abroad: John Paul Jones, Lafayette, Pulaski, Kościuszko, Steuben, de Kalb. Not to mention Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, John Witherspoon, James Wilson. Others were the children of those who were born abroad.
Again: "...or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution..."
It's clear that they didn't want non-citizens or those who weren't citizens from birth to be elected president.
As the Citizenship always followed the father, they would have considered anyone born to a foreign father as a foreign subject. Wives of American men were automatically naturalized until 1924. (If I remember correctly.)
It's also clear that they didn't demand that the parents or grandparents of a prospective president be American-born. Did they require that a president's parents be US citizens at the time of the president's birth?
Yes. That is the only thing they DID require.
I don't think you can maintain that with any degree of certainty.
I don't think you can possibly interpret it any differently.
My point is that there isn't some principle of hostility and mistrust towards those whose parents weren't citizens that comes before the actual words of the Constitution.
On the contrary. They welcomed Productive Foreigners with open arms. I have read the debate in Congress regarding the Naturalization Act of 1790. They WANTED foreigners to come to America and become useful citizens. They ENCOURAGED immigration of Foreigners. They had but ONE absolute requirement. The FATHER must take up residence in the Nation. They SPECIFICALLY banned basic citizenship for the Children of a foreign father, UNLESS he came to America to remain and be a citizen.
You can't reduce the Constitution to some principle that you like. You have to go by the actual wording and the understanding of those words, and they don't give you the certainty that you want and believe you have.
A term of art has meaning beyond the definitions of the individual English words. "Natural Born Citizen" is a synergistic composite that means more than just being born with a possible claim on American Citizenship, it means being born with an unquestionable claim on American Citizenship, because they wanted Unquestionable Allegiance to one and only one Nation; The United States. The one thing about the founders that I am certain of is that they were not fools. To argue that their Check on Foreign influence in our government means they would partially permit it is to assert that these men are simpletons who made a barrier that is no sort of barrier at all!
As the Supreme Court ruled early on, every word and phrase in the US Constitution serves a purpose, and that purpose is not trivial. Letting Half Foreign people rule our country is stupid as the current occupant has amply demonstrated. We wanted no part of Monarchistic interbreeding with Ruling Relatives in other Nations. The Founders knew all about this European practice and wanted no part of it. They knew fully well of the entanglement to be caused by having rulers of Mixed Allegiance, because they had seen the folly of these experiments in Europe! Why on earth would you think they would have welcomed such nonsense here?