Except to the extent subsequent constitutional enactments change that meaning.
Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, there was no constitutional definition of what constituted a citizen, and that includes whether someone was a "natural born citizen" - the Constitution originally left that phrase completely undefined. Although regardless of whether you go with jus solis or jus sanguinas, The most reasonable textual interpretation of "natural born citizen" is someone who was a citizen the moment they were born.
Whatever ambiguity existed was resolved by Section 1 of 14th Amendment, which not only drew a distinction between citizens who are born, and those who are naturalized, but also is not limited to the context of slavery as slavery is not mentioned anywhere in that Section.
I think creating threeclasses of citizen, those who are "natural born", those who are citizens at birth, and those were naturalized is not a concept supported anywhere in either the original Constitution, or by any of its Amendments. I know you don't agree with that, and that's okay. I'm not going to go around and around on this for the 50th time in the last decade or so. I think the textual meaning is pretty clear, and I'll just leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word.
A quibble. They cannot change it's meaning, they can only revoke it's intent. Did the 14th amendment revoke "natural born citizen" as a requirement for President?
I don't think so.
Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, there was no constitutional definition of what constituted a citizen, and that includes whether someone was a "natural born citizen" - the Constitution originally left that phrase completely undefined.
Some time back I ran across a comment on another website talking about a Polish dictionary from the 1870s. Under "horse", the definition said: "Everyone knows what a horse is."
In 1787, everyone knew what a "citizen" was, and everyone knew that a "citizen" was not a "subject." English law applied to "subjects". It did not apply to "citizens." English law didn't even know what that was in 1776.
Although regardless of whether you go with jus solis or jus sanguinas, The most reasonable textual interpretation of "natural born citizen" is someone who was a citizen the moment they were born.
The most reasonable textual interpretation is that which descends from the "natural law" foundation which justified the creation of the nation. "Natural Law" was a thing in 1776. It continued to be a thing until around the 1820s.
Whatever ambiguity existed was resolved by Section 1 of 14th Amendment, which not only drew a distinction between citizens who are born, and those who are naturalized, but also is not limited to the context of slavery as slavery is not mentioned anywhere in that Section.
Slavery isn't mentioned in the body of the US Constitution, but I can point out to you at least two places where that is exactly what they were discussing even though they failed to specifically say "slaves or slavery."
The 14th amendment was specifically about slavery, and pretty much only slavery. You can find out by reading the debates on the 14th, which I have. Scalia would agree the 14th is about giving citizenship to freed slaves.
I think creating threeclasses of citizen, those who are "natural born", those who are citizens at birth, and those were naturalized is not a concept supported anywhere in either the original Constitution, or by any of its Amendments.
The laws which naturalize at birth are not a third class. They are part of the "naturalization" class, and that class was very much indeed understood and acknowledged by the founders.
Therefore, two classes of citizens. Natural, and Naturalized. "At birth" has not a d@mn thing to do with it. They could have set the point at 10 months, a year, or whatever. It's still naturalization.
Look at some of these statutes. They even say naturalization on them. Congress only has the power to naturalize.
I think the textual meaning is pretty clear, and I'll just leave it at that.
Some people simply aren't bothered about something being wrong, or injustices being committed. I have become familiar with such a mindset. Your view is not uncommon.
Feel free to have the last word.
My last word is this. I believe I have beaten you completely on every point you have advanced, and if we were being scored by an objective observer, you would be declared to have lost the debate.
I'm okay with that.
The 14th is a Naturalization Law, a man-made Positive Law, added to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. So the slaves and anyone else who gained basic citizenship via the 14th Amendment were naturalized citizens. And of course those new citizens if joined together in union could then procreate natural born Citizens via the Principles of Natural Law, no Positive Law.
Naturalization Law can create new Citizens at Birth by said Positive Law naturalization law and/o via procedures set out in the law later in time after birth. For example see this current naturalization law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 Note nowhere therein is the words “natural born” found. Said Positive Law cannot create a “natural born Citizen” at birth and no Naturalization Law can do that. And any attempts to do so were errors and never were implemented or in the case of the 1790 erroneous Naturalization Act, it was repealed and replaced by the 1795 Act which removed the words “natural born”. And “natural born” has never been used in any of our Naturalization Laws since. Congress cannot create a “natural born Citizen” via a statutory law or a constitutional amendment. Natural born Citizens are the children of two Citizen parents who were Citizens when their child was born.