[aruanan]

I agree with this “second category” logic above but just to double check myself, what if I get a response arguing, “well there are no 224 year old natural born citizens either?”

That wouldn't make any difference since, if there were, they would always have been eligible, just as, if there were any foreign born who became citizens before the adoption of the Constitution who were still alive, they would still be eligible. The second category was applicable as long as there are people who meet the criteria. These were all folks grandfathered in. Once dead, the second category is inoperative.

The person I was debating with (on Facebook, LOL) was trying to argue that the 14th amendment redefined who a citizen is but I explained it says nothing about who is a natural born citizen nor overrides article 2 for presidential qualifications requiring you be a natural born citizen. His response - “well take it to court you will lose.”

How touching that someone is so omniscient. He must have few problems in life.

[Ikaros]

Okay but if it would be valid to read the two groups of people separately as:

‘No person except a natural born Citizen, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...’

‘No person except a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...’

Now being after the fact how does the rule apply to both equally? Instead of saying “who were still alive, they would still be eligible” and “Once dead, the second category is inoperative” so why isn’t the first category (natural born citizens) inoperative too? I’m just playing devil’s advocate here in case this comes up in order to best defend it as it comes up on conversation to make them understand. I don’t want it to appear as if we are picking and choosing to suit our position, if you see what I mean.