Are you saying/contending that the Constitution does not give two different call outs as to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’. Also, it is somewhat off track of a good debate to have one person telling another that something is not personally relevant to that other person. Reminds me of thought police.
Not at all. But "natural born citizen" being the same as "citizen at birth" still differs from the more generic "citizen" in that naturalized citizens qualify for the latter but not the former.
Also, it is somewhat off track of a good debate to have one person telling another that something is not personally relevant to that other person. Reminds me of thought police.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I do not dispute that. But an opinion is irrelevant compared to fact in the sense that it cannot change the fact - I could have the opinion that no one should be allowed to be President who hasn't served in the military, but that opinion has absolutely no bearing on anyone's legal eligibility to be President. Similarly, people who are imposing an extra-legal and extra-Constitutional test to the Presidency are welcome to do so for themselves, but that doesn't affect the actual eligibility requirements.