“natural born citizens”..there are 3 words here. Congress translated the 1st 2 in 1781, 6 years prior to the drafting of the final version of the Constitution. Websters 1828 dictionary written for the constitution as well as a plethora of early law philosophers on civil law & government such as Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Pufendorf, Grotius, Montesquieu, Vattel, etc, etc(all of which are recorded in Congressional archives of the debates as references to be added to the US library for further reference on the law of nations as well as natural law) over the course of centuries, prior to even the 1st Constitution of England, defined the difference of the root meaning & origins of citizen & subject. The one who rules(citizen) & the other who is ruled(subject). Each word of the constitution has meaning according to Story & each word is to be defined by its original root origin that was common to the lay person & it was common to all that subject & citizen did not get their force from the same origins.
Natural born citizen in the Constitution is NOT put into “_”, they are individual words to be defined individually. Get the picture? You all want to define a phrase when there is none to define and that IS your problem.
My post above was to your previous post. I still have no idea why you think the origins of the words “subject” and “citizen” is relevant, or what support you think Story gives you for looking at the roots. Your posts are like a bunch of ideas chopped into a salad and offered for the reader to untangle. (For example, how can an 1828 dictionary have been written “for the constitution”? What does that even mean?)