You are totally refuted in my post above. The one you declined to read.
David Ramsay refutes you.
John Jay refutes you.
The text (and editing history) of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 refutes you. In Hamilton’s original draft, the constraint was that the President had to be “born a citizen.” In response to John Jay’s criticism regarding the need to prevent the Commander In Chief from having any foreign allegiances, loyalties or conflicts of interest, the constraint was changed to “natural born citizen.” So “natural born citizen” MUST be more restrictive than “born a citizen,” and must be so in ways that address Jay’s concerns.
It was only after the change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” that the exception was added that permitted those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President. There’s no reason for any such exception unless the “natural born citizen” requirement so severely restricted who would be eligible that few could have satisfied the requirement.
And the Congress of 1813 refutes you. They passed a law requiring sailors on US ships to be “natural born citizens.” Because the British Navy was stopping ships at sea looking for able-bodied men who qualified as “natural born subjects” of the British Crown so that they could impress them into the British Navy. Anyone born on British soil (such as the American colonies prior to the peace treaty,) or born to a parent who was a natural born subject of the Crown when the child was born, would qualify as a British “natural born subject.” By requiring that sailors on US ships be “natural born citizens,” Congress sought to prevent the British the opportunity to impress US sailors, since any sailors born on US soil to parents who were US citizens would not qualify as British “natural born subjects,” and so could not legally be impressed into the British Navy.
References for all the above facts are in my post above.
I didn’t see a part in there where a “natural born citizen” was different somehow. Perhaps you can show me.
Ever wonder why the Founders used the word natural? Kind and Natural have the same meaning.
Vattel uses the naturels..take a few moments..research the etymology of Kind..
You will find the answer.
You seem to have a very selective interpretation of the Constitutional Convention. When Jay wrote this, a committee had just been formed to create a draft of the Constitution drawing from the agreed upon proposals from the various state plans. Hamilton's plan was only one of several and was dismissed by the time Jay wrote the letter. You have to read Jay's proposal in the context of plans such as the Virginia Plan, which was more abstract and didn't get into specifics regarding eligibility.
For what my non-expert opinion is worth, I thought “natural born citizen” must mean something more than “a citizen at birth” as well. As far as I’m concerned, Obama is the first US president since William Henry Harrison, with the possible exception of Chester Alan Arthur (I believe there is some doubt), to be entitled to British citizenship at birth. He was entitled to Kenyan citizenship until age 18 under internationally recognized laws as well, I believe.
Being born with a dual allegiance would seem to defeat the natural born citizen concept. Relying on “anchor babies” for a candidate whould just take longer.
(Then again, what if some other nation tried deliberately to play havoc with our laws? What if, say, Iran passed a law stating that all nom-Muslim Americans born in the US were entitled to Iranian citizenship at birth? Would that make all non-Muslim Americans ineligible for the presidency? It should not, of course - and no other nation would recognize that law.)
I agree with your definition of natural-born citizen. But the matter is not free from doubt, and no one in authority raised it before the election. I can’t conceive of any negative consequences to Obama, if the facts are as stated in the long-form. That’s not necessarily what should be, just what is. If I’m wrong I’d be delighted to see the provision enforced.