My veneration of the Framers implies they didn’t add this clause intending it to mean nothing. Even though some today prefer it to mean nothing rather than pushing or deciphering other meanings. I much doubt it was intended to bar ithe presidency to those born via C-Section, although that would comport with one meaning of “natural born.” The clause reportedly engendered little discussion at the time, suggesting that its meaning was generally understood and accepted by the Framers. Which would fit with an interpretation derived from the Common Law of the time. To clarify its meaning in advance rather than to wait to rule someone already ‘elected’ was thusly ineligible via still controversial fine print would be prudent. Yet the courts remain reluctant to address the question. Some clever legal way to encourage SCOTUS to rule, ideally without any current candidacy in question, and without affecting the mostly wise policy of SCOTUS not ruling unless necessary.
The founders were familiar with the French writer Vattel who in the mid 1700s defined NBC as two citizen parents and born on native soil. Historically countries have followed that or required the father to be a citizen.
There is a letter available on line between Washington and Jay about the need for the commander in chief to be trusted.
It is hard to believe the founders wanted a son of a british citizen to be in charge of the US military. When Obama and some of the others were born they had citizenship options. In his case, Kenyan/British or US. Having the option to be the citizen of another country by definition means you are not natural born to one particular country.
” Which would fit with an interpretation derived from the Common Law of the time. “
BRITISH LAW?
No, Vattel’s “The Law Of Nations” would have been the standard at the time.