Natural born citizen is a unitary phrase, no part of it can be changed without changing the meaning of the whole.
Of course not. But we were English colonies, and we derived our legal system and terminology, as well as our language from our mother country.
We don't speak "American" because there's no such distinct language. We speak ENGLISH.
WHY do we, being Americans, speak the ENGLISH language? Because THAT'S WHO WE GOT OUR LANGUAGE FROM.
That applies equally well to our LEGAL language as to our daily language. The language of the Constitution is the language of English legal terminology.
We didn't get our legal terminology from some Swiss guy who never even USED the term "natural born."
In fact, the term "natural born," like the terms "tort," "felony," and a bunch of others appear NO PLACE ELSE.
You claim the phrase means something other than what it meant in the common law. BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE ELSE.
American lawyers all received training in the ENGLISH COMMON LAW. And for many of them, that was the only training they received.
Both Alexander Hamilton and the Supreme Court have told us to look to the common law for the definition of terms in the Constitution.
So when the Constitution says "NATURAL BORN," it means what it meant in the common law. No more, no less.
Citizenship does not equate to natural born citizenship.
Of course it doesn't. This is another of the idiotic red herrings and straw men that Consitution-twisters throw out there.
There are two kinds of citizens: Natural born ones, and naturalized ones.
Natural born citizen is a unitary phrase, no part of it can be changed without changing the meaning of the whole.
"Natural born" means exactly the same thing when applied to "citizen" as it meant when applied to "subject." And the only difference between "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" is the difference between "citizen" and "subject."
Which isn't even that great. The Supreme Court told us they were equivalent terms, except that subjects have allegiance to a king, and citizens have allegiance to the entire body of the people.
And it does not equate to "English Subject". It has a very different basis of principle. It may be analogous to English Subject, but this is very different from being the same thing. Jeff likes to equate Subject with Citizen, but they are not equal, just analogous.
English Subjects are not permitted to inherit land from their Foreign parents. (Until after 1870 when they changed that "common" law.) It doesn't matter how many oaths of Fidelity were uttered, or what documents were signed, English Subjects could not inherit (English) land from Foreign parents or through any other Foreign relative.