Surely you’re aware there was such a thing as new people joining a country back when the Constitution was written. But somehow securing liberty for them and their posterity means the Constitution isn’t for the future of anybody besides their children? Does that mean anyone naturalized after 1789 or born a citizen from at least one side that wasn’t around in ‘89 don’t have freedom of speech or due process rights, either?
Oh, wait, the presidency is purportedly really, really important and restricted, so you know the requirement must have been two citizen parents. Then why pull in the “ourselves and our posterity” stuff? That’s legal and logical gobbledygook. Nevermind, all in fun. I don’t say on the face of it why natural born can’t mean merely born a citizen. That’s certainly a restriction. But you see something I don’t, and can divine exactly how much restriction was implied. Why stop there, I wonder. How do you know they wanted only second generation naturals? Why not require citizen grandparents or great grandparents? That’d be even more restrictive, and according to you therefore more probable.
By the way, even if you have two citizen parents you can be off the “our posterity” list, according to your reading, if your forebears migrated here in 1790 or later. So, once again, your posterity citation is unsound.
Posterity is also the children's children.
Talking about the language, Founding Father Thomas Paine also wrote of "antiquity." He used "antiquity" to refer to what we owed to those who came before us, as a counter to what we owed to our "posterity" who follow. Paine did not mean to limit "antiquity" to just his parents.
I'm simply quoting the Constitution, and nothing more. You can call that unsound if you wish.
-PJ