No they did not. There you go making crap up again.
Further, in Marbury v. Madison, it was stated that every clause of the Constitution must have an effect. An argument is inadmissible if constructed otherwise.
Sure. So?
Hence, “citizen”, and “natural born citizen” must both have an effect.
No one is denying that. Not all citizens are natural born. What's your point?
If there was intended to be no difference, then the word “citizen” would have sufficed, as no distinction would have been necessary. A distinction was clearly made, and the term “natural born citizen” carries greater restrictions than does “citizen.”
No one is disagreeing with you on this point.
Ample evidence from the time clearly displays the intent of the use of the term “natural born citizen.”
Yes, and that evidence indicates they intended "natural born citizen" to be analogous to "natural born subject" under English common law. That means anyone born on US soil, unless the child of diplomats or invaders, is a natural born citizen. This is, of course, different from naturalized citizen.
I’ll have to disagree.
George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and one of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States, proclaimed: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788).
English common law, in many respects, but specifically as it relates to citizenship, is not the law of our country. The Consitution, however, is the law of our country.
The Founders replaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.
The key foundational difference here was “subjects” versus “citizens.”
The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to....they had no idea how poorly educated (and apathetic) the populace would become.