But on the other hand, say Abigail Adams spent time with John in France and had John Quincy there, don't you think John Quincy would be considered a natural born citizen eligible for presidency?
Looks like the argument could go either way and could come down to evidence of the intentions of the parents. For example, the legal status of the parents and the child might depend on whether they intended to permanently reside abroad, which might favor no natural birth citizenship, or were only there as long as official business deemed necessary (like Adams) or on a temporary trip for pleasure which might favor natural birth citizenship.
Actually, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark sets a precedent for such consideration, as the ruling specifically names Wong Kim Ark's parents' established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of his birth as a factor in establishing his 14th Amendment birthright citizenship.
The ruling specifically states:
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution"
Firstly, of course, John Quincy was born prior to the ratification so he was a citizen at the time of ratification and his birth circumstances would be irrelevant.
The 14 year residency requirement certainly suggests that some residency outside the U.S. would not bar a person from becoming President. I have maintained elsewhere that the circumstances of birth for a U.S. citizen born outside the country would be relevant, however if both parents are U.S. citizens, then I find myself believing that the divided loyalty issue is basically eliminated. This might be affected by either parent having dual citizenship or any other circumstance which would justify concern.
I think the "natural born citizen" requirement was to eliminate any reasonable concern about divided loyalty.
Even presumptions about paternity might enter into the discussion. Any illegitimate son of King George the III is ineligible, even if common law might grant paternity to the husband of the mother.
I am quite confident that the Founders did not consider eligibility to become President to be a right. I think they would be quite content to enforce a very strict interpretation. The inclusion of an exception for citizens at the time of ratification argues for this strictness. Otherwise they could simply have used citizenship of the U.S alone as the criteria. Such a standard was simply not sufficient to address their concerns.