In your own words, what is the additional restriction of meaning that the word "natural" adds to the phrase natural born Citizen over that of plain "born citizen?"
If you claim that the word adds no additional meaning, then why did the founders bother to add it to a document for which each section, phrase and sometimes individual word was deliberated and debated over for months?
“In your own words, what is the additional restriction of meaning that the word “natural” adds to the phrase natural born Citizen over that of plain “born citizen?”
I answer none, because it was a well known legal phase in frequent use. The only change was “citizen” for “subject”:
“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
“If you claim that the word adds no additional meaning, then why did the founders bother to add it to a document for which each section, phrase and sometimes individual word was deliberated and debated over for months?”
Actually, it was added without debate. You might want to read the history of how the Constitution was written, and its various drafts.